Forging History: Hipparchus – Declamatio Lies About The Origins of Trigonometry and Precession

This article examines the true origins of who knew astronomy including precession and trigonometry; striking down centuries of lies about our history; and beginning to show where, what, and when the REAL history is.

– published Tuesday May 8, 2018 –

.

The Librarians say –

Hi there! You are currently
In the Reading Library—>
REAL History section

 

REAL History

Where we “lift the veil”

.

Correct The LIES

and

Reveal The Illusions

In today’s article we’ll be doing a bit of all three.

Consider this the first in a series we’ll loosely call – Actual Earth History.

 

 

.

Hipparchus

Shadowy Figures and Declamatio Lies

Lies about:

The Origins of Trigonometry and Precession

Plus

Truth about:

The much earlier source

By Virginia McClaughry

(and Mike McClaughry where noted)

*second in the Forging History series

 

“The Gods of Sumeria and Babylon were not “gods”.
They were codes for stars and planets.”

Quick Guide

Foreword

Introduction – Edward Banks

The “What” – Hipparchus
– 1.1 Who is he?
– 1.2 What are the sources? (and what do they talk about)

The “How” – Hipparchus
– 1.1 Examining the Declamatio network of “ancient” figures
– 1.2 Why was Hipparchus invented?

The Truth – Babylon and the Nesilim
– 1.1 Background
– 1.2 Star and Planet Charts and Trigonometry knowledge

In Conclusion

.

Foreword

 

First, a caveat. This article is not meant to be a “finished” work, nor is it perfectly organized. It is a groundbreaking article, a “first” pass.

That said –

It isn’t often I get to work on something so close to my real goals and purposes. There was a lot of developmental stage work that needed to happen first. We are now ready to begin, with the first subject (as you can tell from the title) being the addressing of the LIES that have created a literal veil between you, me, everyone and what our real history is.

Francis Bacon, student of Dr. Dee, tells us that the first lie, the first tale, will be prejudicially treated – meaning the person will believe it.

Here is observed, that in all causes the first tale possesseth much; in sort, that the prejudice thereby wrought will be hardly removed, except some abuse or falsity in the information be detected.

This blog is here to do exactly that – show you the abuse and falsity these sick men have perpetuated for centuries.

The next thing I should make clear to you is what a MESS this area of history according to “ancient figures” is. I call it a spaghetti mess.

Suffice it to say that this is not going to be an easy read for you, not even with my attempts to make it as simple as I can.

It just IS that bad.

I know, I know. It’s SO much easier to just take what someone who appears (or has been awarded) the “status” of authority says. After all, why should you have to become a student of archaeology, or languages, of math and of astronomy.

Well, there simply is no other way.

Not if you want to do it right.

Even a simple man, or simple woman in my case, knows that to form proper conclusions in order to make correct decisions, one has to survey, understand, and begin to master the area under consideration.

That means, yep. You are going to HAVE to learn at least enough of these areas to be able to look for yourself, to judge for yourself, to understand enough to begin to change your view of your life, the “society” you live in, and yes – even the WORLD.

I think it is worth it, and it is my fondest wish that you and others will too. I figure that only then can we truly change our present and our future, it’s that important.

So, let’s get started.

 

Introduction

Edgar James Banks

The real Indiana Jones

.

Current News – August 2017

The University of South Wales dropped a bombshell on the world on August 24, 2017.
Trigonometry was known in 1800 B.C. Here’s one of the articles on it –

The new research shows the Babylonians, not the Greeks, were the first to study trigonometry — the study of triangles — and reveals an ancient mathematical sophistication that had been hidden until now.

Known as Plimpton 322, the small tablet was discovered in the early 1900s in what is now southern Iraq by archaeologist Edgar Banks, the person on whom the fictional character Indiana Jones was based.

It has four columns and 15 rows of numbers written on it in the cuneiform script of the time using a base 60, or sexagesimal, system.

“Our research reveals that Plimpton 322 describes the shapes of right-angle triangles using a novel kind of trigonometry based on ratios, not angles and circles. It is a fascinating mathematical work that demonstrates undoubted genius.”

The new study by Dr Mansfield and UNSW Associate Professor Norman Wildberger is published in Historia Mathematica, the official journal of the International Commission on the History of Mathematics.

A trigonometric table allows you to use one known ratio of the sides of a right-angle triangle to determine the other two unknown ratios.

The Greek astronomer Hipparchus, who lived about 120 years BC, has long been regarded as the father of trigonometry, with his “table of chords” on a circle considered the oldest trigonometric table.

“Plimpton 322 predates Hipparchus by more than 1000 years,” says Dr Wildberger. “It opens up new possibilities not just for modern mathematics research, but also for mathematics education. With Plimpton 322 we see a simpler, more accurate trigonometry that has clear advantages over our own.”

“A treasure-trove of Babylonian tablets exists, but only a fraction of them have been studied yet. The mathematical world is only waking up to the fact that this ancient but very sophisticated mathematical culture has much to teach us.”

Dr Mansfield read about Plimpton 322 by chance when preparing material for first year mathematics students at UNSW. He and Dr Wildberger decided to study Babylonian mathematics and examine the different historical interpretations of the tablet’s meaning after realizing that it had parallels with the rational trigonometry of Dr Wildberger’s book Divine Proportions: Rational Trigonometry to Universal Geometry.

The 15 rows on the tablet describe a sequence of 15 right-angle triangles, which are steadily decreasing in inclination.

The left-hand edge of the tablet is broken and the UNSW researchers build on previous research to present new mathematical evidence that there were originally 6 columns and that the tablet was meant to be completed with 38 rows.

They also demonstrate how the ancient scribes, who used a base 60 numerical arithmetic similar to our time clock, rather than the base 10 number system we use, could have generated the numbers on the tablet using their mathematical techniques.

The UNSW Science mathematicians also provide evidence that discounts the widely-accepted view that the tablet was simply a teacher’s aid for checking students’ solutions of quadratic problems.

“Plimpton 322 was a powerful tool that could have been used for surveying fields or making architectural calculations to build palaces, temples or step pyramids,” says Dr Mansfield.

The tablet, which is thought to have come from the ancient Sumerian city of Larsa, has been dated to between 1822 and 1762 BC. It is now in the Rare Book and Manuscript Library at Columbia University in New York.

The name is derived from Pythagoras’ theorem of right-angle triangles which states that the square of the hypotenuse (the diagonal side opposite the right angle) is the sum of the squares of the other two sides.

– University of New South Wales. “Mathematical mystery of ancient Babylonian clay tablet solved.”
Science Daily 24 August 2017.

 

Taking this by itself: “A treasure-trove of Babylonian tablets exists, but only a fraction of them have been studied yet.” Now why is that, do you think?

This particular tablet that disproves the declamatio story of Hipparchus as the “discoverer” of this type of math, sat there for over a hundred years before we get told what it really revealed.

A hundred years.

There is no way in hell that was an accident, an oversight, or anything other than not wanting the slavemaster-infected world to find out, en masse, just how badly they have been lied to.

How much. It is shocking.

We’ll be going much deeper into this find, but let’s talk about who this Banks guy was.

Banks was an antiquities enthusiast and entrepreneurial roving archaeologist in the closing days of the Ottoman Empire, who has been held up as an original for the fictional composite figure of Indiana Jones.

In 1909 Banks became a professor of Oriental languages and archaeology at the University of Toledo. He wrote a book, published in 1912, about his excavations of the ancient Sumerian city of Adab, located in what is now Bismya/Bismaya in Iraq.

The book is quite a good read, actually, especially as compared to other stuff or woo-filled ones. It has an element of realness that is often missing in other books I’ve had to read concerning ancient Sumerian history. The book can be found in the internet archive but the scans and original images are of far better quality from the University of Chicago directly.

The tablet that the article above discussed is dated at between 1822 and 1762 BC, but I think they are fudging. Intentionally.

Why do I say that? Because of what Banks says in his book. Notice this part of the article:

Known as Plimpton 322, the small tablet was discovered in the early 1900s in what is now southern Iraq…

That is his expedition that this book is talking about. The tablet was not “from Larsa”. It was found at the mounds of Bismya or what Banks says its people called Adab.

The once city of King David.

Adab was located in the North of the region between Girsou and Nippur. The city is identified with the archaeological site of Bismaya (or Bismya), near the city of Diwaniyah in the province of Wasit in Iraq.

Banks uncovered a marvelous statue from this expedition, marble, and with arms distinct from the body. This threw out the window the idea that it was only the Greeks and Egyptians that made such statues, and that’s only one lie this expedition knocked off its false pedestal of truth.

The other is that the time of King David way predated when any form of the bible had it as, be it Christian or Jewish. This statue of Da-Udu – David – that Banks found January 27, 1904 – was considered the oldest statue in the world. It had an inscription written across the right upper arm.

Here’s some museum pictures of it –

 

Inscription –

Banks discussed the inscription on the statue and translated it for us –

E-SAR (MACH) (The temple) Esar or Emach
LUGAL King
DA-UDU David
LUGAL King (of)
UD-NUN-KI Ud-nun-ki.

“In a list of cities, found on a tablet from Nineveh, appears the name UD-NUN-KI, and an accompanying note teaches us to give to those characters the pronunciation Adab. The ancients, therefore, called the city Adab. Again, upon the famous stone bearing the code of laws of ancient Babylon, King Hammurabi says that he built or restored the city Ud-Nun-Ki and its temple E-Mach.”

Ergo – King David of Ud-nun-ki – Adab – and his temple of Esar or Emach.

Banks takes time to note that a French archaeologist – Thureau-Dangin – published (translated) the name of the king wrong, naming him King Esar purely in order to match biblical stories and history according to those stories.

“He made E-sar the name of the king rather than the name of the temple, and the word which is really the name of the king,  he made an adjective with the meaning mighty. His translation was accepted, and I suppose it will continue to be accepted until other inscriptions from Bismya are examined and the mistake rectified.”

A good example of the kinds of ridiculous discussions taking place, is one I found involving British intelligence man Houston Stewart Chamberlain and Paul Haupt.

 

On p. 446, Banks expands on the origins of the civilization and this temple of E-sar or E-mach. E-mach is translated from Hammurabi as meaning Great Gate (temple). See Yale Avalon project.

Sometime during the fourth millennium B.C., we cannot fix the date with certainty, there appeared a people known as the  Sumerians. They were far more civilised than any who had occupied the valley before them, yet whether they had long lived in Mesopotamia, or came as conquering strangers from without, we do not know, yet some scholars think they came from Central Asia.

From the ruins we learn that they were the first dwellers in the valley to leave a written language, and the first to burn their bricks. When they took possession of the city, they fortified it with a great, encircling wall of plano-convex bricks, and they built a temple which they adorned with the statues of their kings.

The name of the temple was E-sar; in it, perhaps at different times, were worshipped two deities. One was Dingir Mach, the Great God; the other was Nin-harsag, the goddess of the mountain peak. The temple service employed in their worship, as we have seen, consisted of wonderfully beautiful carved vases of stone.

p. 447

From some part of the world, perhaps from Central Arabia, the Semites had come into the valley, and had long occupied the country to the north of Sumer, which was called Akkad. The first of their great kings, of which we know anything, was Sargon I, and as he was overrunning the country with his army of slingers, Adab fell into his possession. The temple was sacked, and the statues of the kings were hurled from their pedestals. It is not certain what fate befell the people, but if many of them were enslaved or killed, others were spared and permitted to remain in the city. Adab was then part Sumerian and part Semitic. A Semitic quarter was near the west corner by the gate, and there the representatives of the great king lived. We have the names of two of his governors, but to me their reading is uncertain. Though the rule of the Sumerians ceased when Sargon took the city, their civilisation continued. However, the Semitic occupation was brief, for it seems to have ended with Naram Sin, the son of Sargon, whose gold inscription we found in the temple.

Again with the decline of Akkad the Sumerians came to power, but Adab was a dependent city under Ur-Engur, Dungi and Gimil Sin, Kings of Ur. Those kings enlarged the temple, rebuilt the city wall, dug wells, and built houses for their  representatives. Again for a brief period Adab seems to have had a king of its own, for E-she-ul-pa-ud-du, who left his name on tablets of stone and copper, calls himself King of Adab. However, he may have lived before these kings of Ur.

About that little piece of gold –

…that little piece of gold. It measured fourteen centimetres in length and five in width, and it bore six lines of a beautifully distinct inscription beginning with the words: ”Naram-Sin, king of Agadi . . ..” Naram-Sin, the son of the great Sargon, had evidently taken some part in the restoration of the temple.

p. 202

It remains to ask in what age King Da-udu lived, and it is a question difficult to answer. However, the characters of the  inscription, the study of the art, the style of the dress, and the location of the statue when it was discovered, enable us to answer it.

By a method of reckoning which has long prevailed, the age of the statue is about 4500 B.C., by another method, now gaining ground, its age is about 3000 B.C.

It seems scarcely necessary to refer to the often repeated story of Nabonidus, the last king of Babylon of 555 B.C., who relates that while restoring a temple, he found an inscription of Naram-Sin, the son of Sargon, and that Naram-Sin lived 3200 years before his time, or 3750 B.C.

Very near the surface of the temple mound was found the gold inscription of Naram-Sin. At a lower level were the immense, square bricks peculiar to the constructions of Sargon, his father. Still lower was a series of fifteen long, grooved bricks, each representing a different royal builder of the temple. The bricks are described in detail below. Previous to the age of the long, grooved bricks was a period when small, hardburned, plano-convex bricks were employed, and the age of these bricks has long been supposed to be about 4500 B.C. Among the ruins of the temple constructed of them the statue was found, and it belonged to their age.

If Naram-Sin lived about 3750 B.C., the combined reigns of the fifteen or more kings before his time, and after King Da-udu, would point to about the same date.

Such was my reasoning when the statue was discovered.

…If the date of Ur-Engur is 2400 B.C., the oldest possible date for Naram-Sin is about 2600 B.C., and then the date of the
statue cannot be far from the close of the fourth millennium B.C.

That’s that 3000 B.C. date he mentioned earlier.

He also mentions that whatever date is given “to sculptures of Ur-Nina, you must also give to King Da-udu.”

“Whichever date that may be,” Banks says, “King Da-udu is represented by the oldest known statue in the round, with the arms free from the body.”

Despite Banks correction attempts and myriad evidentiary examples from the find proving what he said was correct about this King David discovery, this bs bible-based interpretation remained that way. Not too hard to figure out why, this threatens their BS biblical timeline majorly because it puts King David well over a thousand years earlier than biblical stories and in a completely different place, as well as tieing him to the Nesilim.

That’s the sore point, methinks.

Note the very long and prominent nose on the Da-udu/David statue, what we call the Nesilim nose. Banks uncovered a number of pieces that showed this prominent probiscus (nose) and the very distinct difference in the culture, knowledge they brought and physical form the “people that came from the North” and the time of King David, Sargon, and Naram-Sin.

This statue head from p. 256 –

Color image with added blue by museum curators

and this one (p. 268) from an amazingly intricate inlaid vase, note they are playing musical instruments similar to a harp –

Actual image from University of Chicago

This kind of intricate work this far back in time, well before what others had “established” as supposedly the progression of “civilization” really stood out to Banks, and I think his statement is well worth noting.

“Where did the Sumerians obtain the beautiful forms for their vases? The question is difficult to answer, but it is becoming more and more evident that the Sumerians brought to Mesopotamia a civilisation already ancient, and with it must have come the art which they represent.”

He’s right, by the way. It was already ancient.

These Banks’ discovered cylinder seal impressions show the same prominent nose, but also note that the third image below, on the left, shows a horse. This indicates some connection with what were misnamed the “Scythians” by one of our later false history scribes. They were forever changing the names of things (places, people, etc.) purely to obfuscate history and try and force REAL history to match their falsified biblical versions.

Closer –

Is that a double-headed eagle we see there in this image?

We are in the general time period of King Sargon of Akkadia here, and this other (theoretically later) Akkadian cylinder seal impression that I found shows the unique double-headed eagle as well.

(The Mesopotamian Origins of the Hittite Double-Headed Eagle by Jesse D. Chariton;
UW-L Journal of Undergraduate Research XIV 2011)

The reason that is important is that it shows up in the Nesilim (not Hittite, wrong name) empire as the royal symbol, much like the cylinder seal that Edgar Banks found.

Original Nesilim symbol in Turkey

That symbol tracks those who brought war, false history disguised as religion, and the hiding of scientific and astronomical knowledge through coding – to Europe and Britain. (See The Reckoning chapter 2) The two heads symbolize priests and kings.

Notice the hats in that Nesilim carving from Yazilikaya. They obviously harken back to this imagery or symbol for the King that Banks found. (p. 268)

The back story of how Banks came to be on this expedition has some interesting points to be added to the mix here. Like, for example, did you know that the Germans kept getting all the key excavation sites, obtaining what were called iradas far more easily from the Ottoman Empire than anyone else? I didn’t realize the Germans were that active along these archaeological lines in the late 1800’s, well before Hitler was even a gleam in his father’s eye.

In a bizarre twist apparently gone unremarked upon, one of the people mixed up with the push for this expedition of Edgar Banks happens to have been Isador Straus. Isador was on board the Titanic with JJ Astor the 4th when it sunk, making whatever archaeological discoveries Astor was bringing back with him from his expeditions (and perhaps Isador’s as well) lost forever. (see Masterman article, section headed “Side Trip” for more)

In the summer of 1899 the committee of the Ur Expedition was organised with President W. R. Harper of the University of Chicago at its head. Among the names of the other members were those of President Henry Morton of the Stevens Institute, Bishop Potter, C. N. Bliss, W. E. Dodge, Isidor Straus, and several of the leading American archaeologists, including Drs. Peters and Ward. Mr. George Foster Peabody of New York served as treasurer, and Dr. W. H. Hazard, as secretary.

“In July, 1899, our application for an trade to excavate Mugheir was signed by President Harper as president of the committee, and forwarded by the State Departinstructions that it be submitted to the proper depart ment of the Turkish Government. At a meeting of the committee in the office of Mr. Straus, December 3, 1899, I was appointed Director of the Ur Expedition, and instructed, whenever the preliminary arrangements should be completed, and funds sufficient for the work of the first year, raised, to proceed to Constantinople. As it seemed to the committee advisable that a scientific expedition of such pretensions should be affiliated with some large institution, a satisfactory connection was established through Secretary Langley with the Smithsonian Institution, and Mr. Palmer, an expert government ethnologist, was detailed to accompany me. In return for this connection it was understood that the Babylonian antiquities, if any should be brought from the ruins to this country, were to be deposited in the Smithsonian Institution.

…I arrived in Constantinople on January 15, 1900.”

After dicking around trying to get an irade’ (permit) through 1902, where Banks kept running into the Germans laying claim to various sites first, Banks was out of money. He was given an acting professorship of ancient history at Robert College, while he continued to try and push the claim through. Then in July 1903 he gets a cablegram telling him the committee was disbanded, he gave it to Mr. Leishman who looked it over and asked him: How much money would be needed to carry on the excavations at Bismya for two years? Answer 25k, and Leishman said he could raise it with some of his friends, one of which was Isador Straus.

Just 3 months later on October 3, Banks finally received the irade‘ plus in the meantime John D. Rockefeller had donated 100k which caused the Oriental Exploration Fund to be created at the University of Chicago.

Naram-Sin son of Sargon and Ninharsag,
the Lady of the Mountain Peak. mentioned.

He found around 4 or 500 tablets at other points, but at mound IV, they found 2500 tablets. Around five hundred were quite or nearly perfect. It is probably from that batch that the trigonometry tablet was in, dubbed Plimpton 522.

“In IVa, beneath the floor of a house, were several small, clay coffins, but of special interest was the fragment of an ancient game board, possibly the chess board of antiquity. In a shop in Bagdad I later saw a perfect one. It was of burned clay half an inch thick, and originally about eight inches long and two wide. Its surface was divided into thirty-one squares, three of which were marked with cross lines. That it was a game board, upon which men were moved about as in chess, there is little doubt.”

Banks takes the time to tell us just how prevalent the concept of forged archaeological finds were. Banks had been taken in by one of them.

Then I carefully scraped away some of the dirt clinging to the hollow of the ear; it had been stuck there with wax. The statue was modern and worthless.

He then met a Persian who had heard about this and who decided to fill Banks in on how such things were done. I think this is quite fascinating, especially considering I found that there were similar forgeries of supposed artifacts of Confucious going on in China later on, this tradition of forging artifacts to justify bogus history continuing right on up until now. (see Forging History article)

The maker of the bogus antiquities of Bagdad was also a Persian. He heard the story of the statue, and called to inquire how I had discovered that it was modern, that he might perfect himself in his art. He is a man of great skill; he reads books in many languages; he knows the cuneiform signs, and there are few antiquities, such as tablets, coins, statues, seals, and swords that he cannot imitate to perfection. He boastfully claims that both the British Museum and the Louvre are the proud possessors of the work of his hands, and many private collectors treasure his modern antiques.

To learn his methods, I cultivated his friendship, and he brought me forgeries that would deceive the very-elect. Assyriology had hardly come into existence when the forger appeared. At first he confined his attentions to the manufacture of tablets, and knowing nothing of the cuneiform, he merely moulded the clay and stamped on it a few wedge-shaped marks that could deceive none but himself. When he learned to cast the tablets, he was more successful, but he could never entirely remove the casting marks; the characters were less sharp, and the weight and the peculiar, salty taste of the original were lacking.

When tablets were found at Tello in large quantities, they were scarcely worth imitating. The manufacture of seal cyclinders has also been a source of profit. At first they were cast from coloured glass, or from a composition resembling granite, but the objects thus produced were crude. The more successful imitation was then engraved from the fragments of other antiquities, and the design was copied from a genuine cylinder. Detection is therefore very difficult. In recent years the forger has directed his attention to statue making. He employs a soft limestone, easy to work, and shapes it into kings and gods and goddesses.

Most of the fifty or more statues I saw for sale in Bag dad were made by the same man. Stone tablets and inscribed vases are copied from the originals found at Tello and Abu Habba, but instead of an exact copy, a line from another inscription is inserted so carefully that detection is difficult. The freshness of the inscription, and the marks of the acid to age the stone, alone betray them. Quite as difficult to detect is an inscription copied on an ancient vase which was previously uninscribed.

This is all right in line with what posers like Sitchin and David Icke, and a host of others have done in their books. They present forgeries and alterations of actual tablets, statues, etc. to suit their ridiculous conspiracy factitions.

Not much is known as to just what, exactly, Banks was doing during WWI, but we do know that after the war, Banks travelled and lectured extensively, scattering his cuneiform tablets among purchasers wherever he went. Tablets Banks sold to Charles W. Ames are now in the Science Museum at the University of Minnesota and many other private and public sites in the U.S.

One of these sales was to New York publisher George Arthur Plimpton, reportedly for $10. This is what has been dubbed the Plimpton 322 tablet, because when Plimpton’s private collection was donated to Columbia University after his death, this particular cuneiform tablet was the 322nd item in the cataloguing of his collection.

To recap: this was found by Banks at Bismya, one of the 2500 tablets he recovered. It shows a mathematical table pre-dating Hipparchus by around 1000 years and it used base 60 math, like our clocks, making it, also the most accurate trigonometric table. Ergo, this tablet displayed knowledge of the Pythagorean theorem, long before the birth of Pythagoras himself.

Note: There are some sources who I feel are mistaken in referring to that tablet, Plimpton 322, as being from Larsa. There is no proof that was the case, that I can find so far.

We do appear to now have proof that the declamatio history inventors, primarily the Vatican and the Brits, point-blank lied about the origins of the knowledge of this kind of math. There was no Hipparchus, there was no Pythagoras, there were no Greek “scholars”. This was them trying to hide the actual origins of this knowledge as being from the West instead of the East. Not to mention cloaking the clear connection to the Nesilim of these ancient mathematicians.

Why would what is portrayed as essentially mud-hut dwellers and un-evolved man, have such high-level math skills? You need trigonometry for precise astronomical calculations.

There are some questions that we are going to need to ask ourselves about the history of star and planet knowledge, etc. in ancient times.

  1. Why are they coding it?
  2. Why are they consistently – for centuries on up to now – trying to hide this knowledge from “simple man’s” view?

Which leads to the following more narrowed areas of proposed focus:

  • There is something in history, prior to Babylon, prior to the Nesilim, prior to…well, anything we “know” that they don’t want people to know.
  • Who is this “they”?
  • Who are they hiding their connection to?
  • Where or Who did they get the knowledge from?

Giving us some pretty narrow points of theorizing as to what that answer could be, that would require such precise records.

  • Outer Space viewing, mapping and travel.

which could only be because of –

  • a. we, all of us, originated from somewhere else and did not “evolve” here nor were “apes mixed with aliens” or “engineered”, and we, our ancestors, were already familiar with space travel and had advanced technology or
  • b. we did “evolve” here (pick your method) but this happened much, much earlier than we have been told and we had created a civilization MORE advanced than what we have today. One which somehow disappeared with utterly no trace it ever existed.

Not a lot of other options.

None, in fact.

With that in mind, let’s start with seeing if we can glean WHAT they – who we call the slavemasters – are lieing about, what is their sore spot, their “protect” button, and then look at the “how” they have done it.

 

The “What” – Hipparchus

1.1 Who is he?

Hipparchus holding his celestial globe, in Raphael’s The School of Athens (c.1510)

 

The basics –

You can find this information just about anywhere on the internet, so I’ll just keep it short here. We are told that Hipparchus was a Greek mathematician who lived in the 100 B.C. era. We are also told that he developed trigonometry.

The first trigonometric table was apparently compiled by Hipparchus, who is now consequently known as “the father of trigonometry”

Besides noting the careful wording with the addition of the word apparently, we now know that’s false since the Plimpton 322 tablet predates Hipparchus by 2 or 3000 years, depending on whose dating system you’re using, but bear with me here.

We are told that Hipparchus “discovered” precession, the wobble in the earth’s axis over a long period in time. For precession to show up as a variance in astronomical tables, one would need a minimum of 71.6 years to show even a 1 degree difference. Hundreds of years of precision records in order to really track it.

In modern times, this exact timing has been noted, and this is why you now see backdated statements like this appearing during especially the last 20 years out there:

Hipparchus recognized that astronomy requires accurate and systematic observations extended over centuries, so he used many old observations along with his own.

Older descriptions said nothing about Hipparchus having centuries of information available to him because he didn’t have that and couldn’t have had because he didn’t exist!

This is your first clue that something is wrong here with this Hipparchus character. Why wasn’t the information included previously? I would say that it’s because pretty much nobody, for centuries, understood astronomy well enough to even notice that flawed story, let alone would brave the Catholic Church and British forgers ire in getting caught out, but in modern times it became more difficult to float that boat with so many holes in it, hence “updating” – really backdating – the story of how Hipparchus “discovered” precession.

We’ll get into the technicalities of what precession is, put in as simple a manner as possible, later on here. You’ll be able to really see just how ridiculous this particular declamatio invention of “Hipparchus” really was (and still is).

The two main discoveries that are erroneously (intentionally erroneously) attributed to Hipparchus are trigonometry and precession, as well as a star catalog.

Here’s a pretty representative description of his supposed discovery of precession –

In compiling his famous star catalog (completed in 129 bce), the Greek astronomer Hipparchus noticed that the positions of the stars were shifted in a systematic way from earlier Babylonian (Chaldean) measures. This indicated that it was not the stars that were moving but rather the observing platform—Earth. Such a motion is called precession and consists of a cyclic wobbling in the orientation of Earth’s axis of rotation with a period of 25,772 years. Precession was the third-discovered motion of Earth, after the far more obvious daily rotation and annual revolution. Precession is caused by the gravitational influence of the Sun and the Moon acting on Earth’s equatorial bulge. To a much lesser extent, the planets exert influence as well.

OK, so notice the part that says “from earlier Babylonian (Chaldean) measures.” That is a recent addition just like the one I showed you, where it has been added that he had hundreds of years of records to “observe” this with – going back to Chaldean times.

Note the backpeddaling going on these days with the very first words and then contradicted later on within this same passage! (found on the internet).

Even if he did not invent it, Hipparchus is the first person whose systematic use of trigonometry we have documentary evidence. Hipparchus produced a table of chords, an early example of a trigonometric table. He did this by using the supplementary angle theorem, half angle formulas, and linear interpolation. Hipparchus was not only the founder of trigonometry but also the man who transformed Greek astronomy from a purely theoretical into a practical predictive science. He also introduced the division of a circle into 360 degrees into Greece.

From this passage, note the addition of details trying to use accuracy as some sort of proof that it came from Hipparchus.

Greek astronomer and mathematician who discovered the precession of the equinoxes, calculated the length of the year to within 6 1/2 minutes, compiled the first known star catalog, and made an early formulation of trigonometry.

And note from this source, the introduction of MORE backdated charts that Hipparchus used, a total fabrication of a supposed document Hipparchus wrote about precession (which doesn’t exist anywhere but in the forgers minds) and the introduction of another declamatio character named Timocharis to try and make it sound more “real”, plus do note the offhand addition of “earlier observations made in Babylonia”.

You’re watching history be rewritten by the lying liars.

Hipparchus is best known for his discovery of the precessional movement of the equinoxes; i.e., the alterations of the measured positions of the stars resulting from the movement of the points of intersection of the ecliptic (the plane of the Earth’s orbit) and of the celestial equator (the great circle formed in the sky by the projection outward of the Earth’s equator). It appears that he wrote a work bearing “precession of the equinoxes” in the title. The term is still in current use, although the phenomenon is more usually referred to merely as “precession.” This notable discovery was the result of painstaking observations worked upon by an acute mind. Hipparchus observed the positions of the stars and then compared his results with those of Timocharis of Alexandria about 150 years earlier and with even earlier observations made in Babylonia.

It’s utterly amazing watching people go through these contortions of thinking to try and make a completely implausible FICTION seem to be real or true. This is one of the dead giveaways that this was all done by the same people who brought us the ultimate Conspiracy Factition – the Christian bible. They don’t truck in truth, they truck in acceptable truth – a very Jesuit sub-understanding way of saying LIES.

First of all, there is NOTHING, repeat NOTHING whatsoever in existence anywhere that is from 129 BC by Hipparchus. Not one fragment, not one word or symbol anywhere.

You get asinine statements like this:

His famous star catalog was incorporated into the one by Ptolemy, and may be almost perfectly reconstructed by subtraction of two and two thirds degrees from the longitudes of Ptolemy’s stars.

and this –

Hipparchus must have lived some time after 127 BC because he analyzed and published his observations from that year.

In the first example, really look at that. A subtraction of two and two thirds degrees reconstructs Hipparchus’s star catalog? According to who, exactly? Since nothing whatsoever exists from Hipparchus.

In the second example, he MUST have lived after 127 BC “because he analyzed and published his observations from that year.”  Again, there is NOTHING in existence written by Hipparchus from 127 BC. But, let’s say that you are a Catholic priest in the late 1400’s, which means you’re a Nesilim priest lineage from Turkey, the Nesilim priests there who in turn ruled over Babylonia during Chaldean times, who in turn were priests that kept the mythologized astronomical records coming forward that dated back to 2000 BC, minimum.

You would have HAD the star charts going back that far and could easily reproduce astronomical calculations from any previous time period. and then, for example, weave it into being a story about “Hipparchus star charts” and then you’d approve of such asinine statements to try and back it up, like this:

Hipparchus must have lived some time after 127 BC because he analyzed and published his observations from that year.

…Ptolemy presented his astronomical models in convenient tables, which could be used to compute the future or past position of the planets.

THAT is exactly what happened with this. The same technique gets done again and again and again with all sorts of totally fabricated Greek historical characters.

I repeat.

If you had the charts back to then you could easily forge a story.

The “What” – Hipparchus

1.2 What are the sources and what do they talk about?

Let’s start with this description.

The Almagest is the critical source of information on ancient Greek astronomy. It has also been valuable to students of mathematics because it documents the ancient Greek mathematician Hipparchus’s work, which has been lost. Hipparchus wrote about trigonometry, but because his works appear to have been lost, mathematicians use Ptolemy’s book as their source for Hipparchus’s work and ancient Greek trigonometry in general.

Note: Almagest means “the greatest compilation”.

Since we already know that there is also a story about “Ptolemy” supposedly using Hipparchus star charts –

Hipparchus completed the first known catalog in 129 bce, giving the celestial longitudes and latitudes of about 850 stars. This work was enlarged and improved by Ptolemy, the Alexandrian astronomer and mathematician, in his Almagest (c. 140 ce).

And that was BACK calculated to look like it was from Hipparchus time, this adds another layer of bullshit to the mix here. Ptolemy lists 1200 stars, not 850, and the longitudes given are from that time period B.C.

They (Almagest, Book VII) also contain a star catalogue of 1022 stars, described by their positions in the constellations, together with ecliptic longitude and latitude. Ptolemy states that the longitudes (which increase due to precession) are for the beginning of the reign of Antoninus Pius (138 AD), whereas the latitudes do not change with time. The stellar positions too are of Hipparchan origin, despite Ptolemy’s claim to the contrary. Ptolemy identified 48 constellations: The 12 of the zodiac, 21 to the north of the zodiac, and 15 to the south.

Why lie and say Hipparchus’s catalogue was 850, when all the positions are from the same time period that the declamatio writer is trying to lay off on Hipparchus?

Bit of an oopsie there (and there’s a lot more where that came from).

When it comes to backdating or not telling the truth in some way about astronomical charts, here is a comparative example for you to see the similar tactics (and excuses as to why there are NO original documents) employed.

This Almagest adds in another declamatio character called “Pappus”, whom, of course, there is no original works surviving IN HIS HAND. Meaning, written by him directly.

However, a real date comes from the dating of a solar eclipse mentioned by Pappus himself, when in his commentary on the Almagest he calculates “the place and time of conjunction which gave rise to the eclipse in Tybi in 1068 after Nabonassar”. This works out as October 18, 320 AD, and so Pappus must have flourished c. 320 AD.[1] The great work of Pappus, in eight books and titled Synagoge or Collection, has not survived in complete form: the first book is lost, and the rest have suffered considerably.

Notice the forgery of using an eclipse of October 18, 320 AD as proof of when someone lived. I’ll say it again, if you had the star charts in say late 1400’s, you could simply look it up or recalculate it and then voila!

Bullshit proof.

You know, it wasn’t actually Hipparchus that was sock-puppeted in as claiming to have consulted Babylonian star charts (as discussed in last section) – it was a different declamatio character

Ptolemy.

The same one who supposedly wrote this Almagest.

Ptolemy, however, claimed to have derived his geometrical models from selected astronomical observations by his predecessors spanning more than 800 years, though astronomers have for centuries suspected that his models’ parameters were adopted independently of observations…The Almagest also contains a star catalogue, which is a version of a catalogue created by Hipparchus. Its list of forty-eight constellations is ancestral to the modern system of constellations, but unlike the modern system they did not cover the whole sky (only the sky Hipparchus could see). Across Europe, the Middle East and North Africa in the Medieval period, it was the authoritative text on astronomy, with its author becoming an almost mythical figure, called Ptolemy, King of Alexandria.The Almagest was preserved, like most of extant Classical Greek science, in Arabic manuscripts (hence its familiar name). Because of its reputation, it was widely sought and was translated twice into Latin in the 12th century, once in Sicily and again in Spain.

The Almagest is the critical source of information on ancient Greek astronomy. It has also been valuable to students of mathematics because it documents the ancient Greek mathematician Hipparchus’s work, which has been lost. Hipparchus wrote about trigonometry, but because his works appear to have been lost, mathematicians use Ptolemy’s book as their source for Hipparchus’s work and ancient Greek trigonometry in general.

Well, from that source we have the usual lost, lost and more lost, plus the interesting admission that this is from a mythical figure Ptolemy.

We get that it was supposedly originally an Arabic manuscript, but then it’s supposedly a Greek one named Mathematike Syntaxis, and then in the declamatio-fest period of time begun by Pope Nicholas V, where he was HIRING writers to write what he wanted them to,  is when this thing FIRST APPEARED in any kind of real documentable way. It was in Latin and named Syntaxis Mathematica or Almagestum – the year was 1515.

Now this does exist. It is all that exists. From a simple man point of view, let’s just pair that dog with his bone and say this is when it was written – this is when the forgery happened.

 

Example of star charts in it –

There is also one allegedly from 1496 –

Epytoma Ioannis de Monte Regio in Almagestum; Ptolomei, Latin

 

Even in this wikipedia entry tracking this work, something interesting shows up.

The work was originally titled “Μαθηματικὴ Σύνταξις” (Mathēmatikē Syntaxis) in Ancient Greek, and also called Syntaxis Mathematica or Almagestum in Latin. The treatise was later titled Hē Megalē Syntaxis (Ἡ Μεγάλη Σύνταξις, “The Great Treatise”; Latin: Magna Syntaxis), and the superlative form of this (Ancient Greek: μεγίστη, megiste, “greatest”) lies behind the Arabic name al-majisṭī (المجسطي), from which the English name Almagest derives. The Arabic name is important due to the popularity of a Latin re-translation made in the 12th century from an Arabic translation, which would endure until original Greek copies resurfaced in the 15th century.

The orange-bolded part. Original Greek copies. That’s kind of an oxymoron, you know. They aren’t original anything. Yes, we’re told the lovely little fairy tale that all these industrious Christian and Jewish monks fastidiously hand-copied these supposed originals for over 1100 years, but does that seem likely to you that they were originally in Greek or Arabic only?

Not to mention this falls right in the period where the Catholics were hiring people to produce declamatio writings exactly like this, to fill the Vatican’s library and their secret archives with.

The Catholics and British nobility were clearly looking for ways to give themselves pseudo-credibility and perhaps far more importantly… a pseudo-history that does not track where they really came from and where this knowledge really came from and how in the hell they could even have known what they did.

In the notes about p. 25 of On the Revolutions, Volume 2 by Nicholas Copernicus (notes by Rosen, Jerzy Dobrzycki) we see some other interesting giveaways that Hipparchus is an invention. For one thing, it documents that someone had simply written in the name of Hipparchus on one of the manuscripts, but it’s the other item that I find even more interesting – a declamatio writing by “Clement” of Alexandria.

“Hipparchus the Pythagorean, being guilty of writing on Pythagoras’ teachings in plain language, was expelled from the brotherhood, and a tombstone was erected for him, as though he were dead.”

What do I take away from that rather odd storyline addition?

  1. it is proof that they were HIDING astronomical and scientific knowledge that had a rule that it be written NOT “in plain language
  2. it is proof that Hipparchus never existed
  3. it is a veiled excuse for why there was no writings of Hipparchus – struck from the records etc “as though he were dead

Number 1 is the most important, intrinsic in this portion: “being guilty of writing on Pythagoras’ teachings in plain language“. But why did I say that this declamatio is proof that Hipparchus never existed?

Because of this part: “Hipparchus the Pythagorean

Pythagoras is another completely fictional creation. This is where the suggested reading of this recently published article: Forging History comes into play, and I highly suggest you read it before you continue as it really needs to be understood just what a Lord of the Rings type story this all is.

So, to hinge Hipparchus as having been part of and then “booted” – supposedly – out of another completely fictional bunch called Pythagoreans? Is just heaping insult on top of injury here.

The next point is that if this Almagestum supposedly showed that Hipparchus knew of precession or “the wobble” of the earth’s rotational axis back in 200 B.C. then why, exactly, do we have statements like this in volume 15 of the Catholic Encyclopedia –

“Precession was still a matter of special difficulty to Copernicus, and one of the three terrestrial motions that he could not explain. To him, it was the resultant of the annual, slightly different, conical rotations of opposite direction, to which no cause could be consigned.”

Why is this a problem?

Because of who, or more importantly when Copernicus was.

Ignatious Loyola formed the Society of Jesus (Jesuits) in 1534, officially approved by Pope Paul III in 1539, who then issued a papal bull about it (containing the “Formula of the Institute”) in 1540.

It was in this climate (and in this time) that Copernicus first presented his new theories about that the universe didn’t revolve around a non-moving earth, it was the other way around. He did all the proper procedures and permissions to publish his book, even dedicating it to Paul III.

Copernicus initially outlined his system in a short, untitled, anonymous manuscript that he distributed to several friends, referred to as the Commentariolus.

de_revolutionibus_manuscript_p9b-copernicus

Copernicus died in 1543 and his supposed book he wrote (which we have no proof it was actually him that did so) wasnt published until thirteen years later in 1566.

It was titled: De Revolutionibus.

de_revolutionibus_orbium_coelestium-1566

In the 16th century the Catholic Church considered scientific proofs as direct and unambiguous frontal assaults upon its spiritual and political authority in Europe.

They didn’t make any official condemnations so long as Copernicus’ ideas remained a mathematical argument (in Latin) among scholars and did nothing to threaten either the beliefs of the common man or the Church’s ultimate authority in such matters.

In other words, as long as almost nobody could read it because it was in Latin, then it wasn’t considered a threat to the Catholic Popes and European Kings power base.

So, here’s the problem in our timeline here.

If this original (so-called) work by Ptolemy quoted Hipparchus works explaining about precession – as this wikipedia passage states –

Hipparchus is generally recognized as discoverer of the precession of the equinoxes in 127 BC. His two books on precession, On the Displacement of the Solsticial and Equinoctial Points and On the Length of the Year, are both mentioned in the Almagest of Claudius Ptolemy. According to Ptolemy, Hipparchus measured the longitude of Spica and Regulus and other bright stars. Comparing his measurements with data from his predecessors, Timocharis and Aristillus, he concluded that Spica had moved 2° relative to the autumnal equinox. He also compared the lengths of the tropical year (the time it takes the Sun to return to an equinox) and the sidereal year (the time it takes the Sun to return to a fixed star), and found a slight discrepancy. Hipparchus concluded that the equinoxes were moving (“precessing”) through the zodiac, and that the rate of precession was not less than 1° in a century. (Wikipedia)

And Almagest was circulating in print, in Latin (which Copernicus could read) in 1515, more than 15 years before Copenicus publishes his first works…then how come we see Catholics saying this:

volume 15 of the Catholic Encyclopedia; 1913 –

Precession was still a matter of special difficulty to Copernicus, and one of the three terrestrial motions that he could not explain. To him, it was the resultant of the annual, slightly different, conical rotations of opposite direction, to which no cause could be consigned.”

But it was already explained by Hipparchus and Ptolemy, supposedly, in the Almagest.

Or was it…

I think that astronomers in tight with the Pope knew damn well the universe didn’t rotate around the earth, as they had been telling others. In fact, that was one way to guarantee that others couldn’t come up with proper calculations, what with being forced to start from such a wrong-headed view.

While they were busy condemning Galileo for making Copernicus and other astronomical information about the earth revolving around the sun available in local people’s language, over in far flung places like China, the Jesuits were doing astronomical calculations based on proper understanding of the earth’s rotation and movement around the sun, which included pre-cession, it’s “wobble”. (See Forging History) They couldn’t possibly understand precession properly or make accurate astronomical predictions if they didn’t.

Copernicus was having trouble with precession because he was starting from a deliberately false, a deliberately planted false idea about the earth’s movements – that it didn’t “move”, the sun did.

Well, of course he’d have trouble, but THEY weren’t having trouble. Get it?

Once the genie was out of the bottle, so to speak, it became harder and harder to contain it. It’s ironic that we still have the Catholics, in 1913, trying to figure out how to explain why Copernicus and Galileo would have trouble figuring out or making calculations from extant (and declamatio) texts that deliberately falsified and/or held back information from them.

Oops.

Now take a look at this.

Images info – Precessional movement of the axis (left), precession of the equinox in relation to the distant stars (middle), and the path of the north celestial pole among the stars due to the precession. Vega is the bright star near the bottom (right).

 

Text that went with this at Wikipedia, and note: this is the 1515 Almagest they’re talking about, the ONLY source for Hipparchus.

The ancient Greek astronomer Hipparchus (c. 190-120 BC) is claimed to be the earliest known astronomer to recognize and assess the precession of the equinoxes at about 1° per century (which is not far from the actual value for antiquity, 1.38°). Caltech’s Swerdlow disputes Hipparchus’s knowledge of precession because Hipparchus apparently did not necessarily indicate anything like a motion of the entire sphere of the fixed stars with respect to the equinoxes.The precession of Earth’s axis was later explained by Newtonian physics. (wikipedia)

And yet, some Catholics (and some Mesopotamians) were making correct calculations that factored precession properly into their equations.

Again, I think this was made “secret” knowledge by the Catholics, and for good reason. If you had something BIG to hide, that is.

I’ll tell you another way that shows they did know this. It has to do with a special chapel.

Giovanni Domenico Cassini’s design for the meridian line in the Basilica di San Petronio in Bologna.
image source – Linda Hall Library of Science, Engineering and Technology

It was built with what is called a solar hole in it. Note the roof where all the lines converge from above onto a “hole”. This 2016 article describes how it works –

A disc of light moves across the cathedral floor. The marble in its path lights up, revealing deeply colored swirls, rich with hues of burgundy, plum, caramel, and ochre. …The source of this light is a hole punched through the roof of the church high above, elaborately accentuated by a brilliant halo of golden rays, painted to resemble the sun. The hole acts like a film projector. Daylight streams through, creating a narrow beam of illumination visible only in the presence of smoke or dust, as if something otherworldly has been forced into material form.

Seconds pass, minutes, an hour. Outside, the sun appears to arc slowly across the daytime sky; here, in response, the projected disc creeps inch by inch across the marble floor. At solar noon, when the sun has reached its highest point in the sky, the circle of light touches a long, straight line made of inlaid brass and copper, nearly 220 feet from end to end, or two-thirds the length of an American football field. Although this line extends more than half the length of the cathedral floor, it seems to follow its own geometric logic: it is a long diagonal slash cutting between two columns, against the building’s floor plan, as if at odds with the structure that houses it.

Stranger still, on either side of this brass line, words and celestial images have been carved directly into the rock. There are the 12 signs of the zodiac interspersed amongst Roman numerals and references to solstices. There is Aquarius, the water bearer; Capricorn, with its confusing mix of shaggy horns and the coiled tail of a sea creature; Sagittarius, preparing to fire a magnificent bow and arrow; and the pouting fish of Pisces. At first glance, these symbols seem pagan, even sacrilegious, as if the astral remnants of an older belief system have somehow survived beneath the feet—and beyond the gaze—of daily worshippers.

…Yet these symbols are not there to cast horoscopes, let alone spells. They are there for purposes of church administration and astronomical science. This cathedral, the Basilica di San Petronio in Bologna, Italy, also doubles as a solar observatory—at one point, one of the most accurate in the world—and these signs of the zodiac are part of an instrument for measuring solstices.

…Heilbron’s book, published in 1999 by Harvard University Press, was the first major English-language study to take this advice seriously, exploring the origins, meaning, and transformation of these early astronomical instruments hidden in plain sight, disguised in the very architecture of European cathedrals.

This isn’t the only chapel with disguised astronomical measurements, including meridian lines.

Maria degli Angeli in Rome has a beautifully realized and particularly grandiose example cutting through its nave; Saint-Sulpice in Paris hosts its own, as does Santa Maria del Fiore in Florence; a church tightly nestled in the packed streets of Fossombrone, Italy, bears a meridian line; the heavily worn remains of a line are still visible in the cloisters of England’s Durham Cathedral; and the duomos of Milan and Palermo also contain their own meridian lines.

Another example of a Roman Catholic chapel with astrological signage –

The zodiac sign for Cancer on the meridian line in the Basilica Santa Maria degli Angeli e dei Martiri in Rome. – Jean-Pol GRANDMONT/CC BY-SA 3.0

 

Profess Heilbron uncovered a “surprising story of cooperation…between precision astronomical observation and Catholic liturgy” citing that:

Direct, even enthusiastic collaboration, uniting esoteric science with canonical religious belief, lay at the core of this hidden story.

Easter, a Christian holiday commemorating Jesus Christ’s supposed resurrection from the dead, is defined by astronomical circumstance. No specific date is set for it, but a specific astronomic circumstance is cited that must be fulfilled. Easter is to be celebrated on the first Sunday after the first full moon after the spring equinox, a day when time is split equally into 12 hours each of light and darkness.

If you understand that having knowledge of precession is necessary for these calculations to be correct, truly correct, then you will get some idea of what was at stake here.

In fact, per Heilbron, thanks to this vast astronomical device embedded in the floor of this cathedral, Easter could now be determined not just with a quick glance, but with unquestionable precision.

This first meridian line at Bologna was installed by an artisan and Dominican (Catholic priest) cartographer named Egnazio Danti in 1575.

This whole thing is proof of not only that the Catholics were hiding and coding astronomy from the “common” people, but it also proves they had precise astronomical calculations including precession.

And yet, Copernicus can’t seem to understand it in 1534, despite the 1515 Almagest quoting Hipparchus – the man from 1700 years earlier that we are given to believe provided PERFECT precession factors for trigonometric astronomical calculations as per current scholarly descriptions like this:

Hipparchus is best known for his discovery of the precessional movement of the equinoxes; i.e., the alterations of the measured positions of the stars resulting from the movement of the points of intersection of the ecliptic (the plane of the Earth’s orbit) and of the celestial equator (the great circle formed in the sky by the projection outward of the Earth’s equator). It appears that he wrote a work bearing “precession of the equinoxes” in the title. The term is still in current use, although the phenomenon is more usually referred to merely as “precession.” This notable discovery was the result of painstaking observations worked upon by an acute mind. Hipparchus observed the positions of the stars and then compared his results with those of Timocharis of Alexandria about 150 years earlier and with even earlier observations made in Babylonia.

He discovered that the celestial longitudes were different and that this difference was of a magnitude exceeding that attributable to errors of observation. He therefore proposed precession to account for the size of the difference and he gave a value of 45″ or 46″ (seconds of arc) for the annual changes. This is very close to the figure of 50.26″ accepted today and is a value much superior to the 36″ that Ptolemy obtained.

The discovery of precession enabled Hipparchus to obtain more nearly correct values for the tropical year (the period of the Sun’s apparent revolution from an equinox to the same equinox again), and also for the sidereal year (the period of the Sun’s apparent revolution from a fixed star to the same fixed star). Again he was extremely accurate, so that his value for the tropical year was too great by only 6 1/2 minutes.

Observations of star positions measured in terms of celestial latitude and longitude, as was customary in antiquity, were carried out by Hipparchus and entered in a catalog–the first star catalog ever to be completed. Hipparchus measured the stellar positions with greater accuracy than any observer before him.

So, someones in 1515, by the time the Almagest came out, even though apparently it couldn’t have been in the Almagest or Ptolemy’s calculations wouldn’t have been so off (if he had the Hipparchus ones as they lied that he did) – anyway, someones did already had this level of knowledge but were clearly hiding it from the average person, including encoding their astronomical measuring devices in Roman Catholic chapels.

Right under the ignorant worshipful’s feet.

That’s pretty sick, if you ask me. And also extremely arrogant and mean.

In what I consider to be poetic justice, this built in “proof” began to backfire on the skeezy, sneaky Catholics. For those with “unapproved” of intelligence applied to astronomy, this very chapel provided the proof that the Catholics had been deliberately lying to the faithful that the earth was stationary and the center of the universe, with everything else revolving around it.

They knew it wasn’t, and the very astronomical devices built in – proved they were lying.

Proof of this wrongness was clearly revealed to the discerning eye, every single season, and it was revealed by the very instruments built into the floors of some of Europe (and Britain’s) finest cathedrals.

Well within sight of the church pews, a moving beam of sunlight suggested that the cosmos was altogether stranger than Christian theology had allowed itself to imagine. In Heilbron’s words, Catholic officials had not expected “that their cathedral would provide information about the heavens opposed to the teachings of their church.

I think Heilbron is hedging. It’s pretty clear to me that this man is trying to be some sort of Catholic apologist, and tip-toeing around the clear evidence of bald-faced lying. I’ll tell you what the Catholic and British slavemasters didn’t expect. They didn’t expect that anyone would be smart enough, or educated enough – without their help – to catch them and be able to prove they knew they were lying, and prove that they used the true data in their astronomical calculations.

And worse, tell everyone else about it. Like Galileo. What with all their torturing and disappearing of people, they didn’t expect anyone to have the courage to stand up to them and speak out.

That’s what they didn’t expect.

Almost a hundred years later, in 1655, this particular chapel was repaired (due to a wall becoming displaced) by Jesuit astronomer and engineer Giovanni Domenico Cassini. You may know his name because it was used for a high-profile NASA satellite mission launched in October 1997 to photograph the moons of Saturn.

The meridian line and the other built in astronomical calculations still stand. (With the exception of repairs performed in 1695 and again in 1776).

 

Just visible here, in a plaque in the marble floor, are the zodiac signs of Pisces and Scorpio. Both appear near the spring and autumn equinoxes, respectively. Geoff Manaugh

 

Jesuit Mueller said that “reason” is crucial to religious practice.

Is it.

Then why lie to everyone?

Unless you are deliberately trying to screw up their reason, so maybe they won’t see through to your skechy, skeezy, slimy lying-ass selves.

Jesuit Mueller tries to cover up all that skeeziness by saying:

“If we are doing math, if we are doing science—for that matter, if we are doing art—any human activity done with generosity and reverence is acting in God’s image. Science is included in that.”

So then, their skeezy lying about it is in their God’s image.

Now that be the truth.

You know, I think it should noted as further testimony to the true character of these skeezy Catholic slavemasters, it was not until 1992, 359 years after his death, that Galileo was finally cleared of these charges. Although the Church had quietly lifted its ban on Galileo’s heliocentric astronomy in 1757, they didn’t let the rank and file know until another 235 years later.

How’s that for a testimony to arrogance. Whoo howdy!

Further emphasizing the level of accuracy the Catholics (and certain Brits etc.) had – that they thew off over on to imaginary Hipparchus and other Greek figures – look at this passage and diagram of what they declamatio’ed as being from Hipparchus.

Almagestum (Almagest) Book VII description

He measured the ecliptic longitude of the star Spica during lunar eclipses and found that it was about 6° west of the autumnal equinox. By comparing his own measurements with those of Timocharis of Alexandria (a contemporary of Euclid who worked with Aristillus early in the 3rd century BC), he found that Spica’s longitude had decreased by about 2° in about 150 years. Ptolemy called this his “first hypothesis” (Almagest VII.1).

Remember how we discussed earlier that it takes 71.6 years of tracking for a 1 degree precessional variation to be known? Double that and that’s where you get that “about 150 years” descriptor.

Hamlet’s Mill has an unidentified Neolithic culture establishing a 360 degree circle moving 1 degree every 71.6 years, but in encoding the number in mythology they round it to 72!

Why did Hipparchus need a lunar eclipse to measure the position of a star? The equinoctial points are not marked in the sky, so he needed the Moon as a reference point. Hipparchus had already developed a way to calculate the longitude of the Sun at any moment. A lunar eclipse happens during Full moon, when the Moon is in opposition. At the midpoint of the eclipse, the Moon is precisely 180° from the Sun. Hipparchus is thought to have measured the longitudinal arc separating Spica from the Moon. To this value, he added the calculated longitude of the Sun, plus 180° for the longitude of the Moon. He did the same procedure with Timocharis’ data (Evans 1998, p. 251).

Observations like these eclipses, incidentally, are the main source of data about when Hipparchus worked, since other biographical information about him is minimal. The lunar eclipses he observed, for instance, took place on April 21, 146 BC, and March 21, 135 BC (Toomer 1984, p. 135 n. 14).

Yet again, I want to remind you that when forging this Hipparchus crap, the use of old astronomical records (like past lunar eclipses) was done to make the story seem real. Very tricky.

But even worse for their credibility, is the clear knowledge of the exact amount of years needed to track 1 degree of precessional difference was known back in 1500.

One way or another, this is proof of havng access to very accurate astronomical records going way back into the B.C. time period, but why invent mythical Greek characters as the source? Why lie?

As if that’s not proof enough that something is very wrong here with this whole “history” factition they had going? Look at this now.

This handy little 1884 chart from A Cyclopedia of Practical Information serves a number of purposes helpful to my research here. Notice that ALL finds related to astronomy prior to the 1500’s are GREEK figures and only go back to 600 BC.

Part of why this is interesting, is that apparently the Almagest claims that the “records” of star charts (that are supposedly reviewed by Hipparchus to come up with the phenomena of precession) are said to go back 800 years, which would be 800 BC. And yet Hipparchus is also said to have only reviewed records back to 300 B.C., remember.

Ptolemy, however, claimed to have derived his geometrical models from selected astronomical observations by his predecessors spanning more than 800 years…Ptolemy presented his astronomical models in convenient tables, which could be used to compute the future or past position of the planets.

They can’t keep their story straight, in other words.


1884 – when this timeline was published – is just before all the major German (and others, including Edgar Banks) archaeological digs were getting into high gear. This chart is amazing because it shows that prior to archaeological finds proving that this is all bullshit as an “earliest” source timeline, there was one “story” and one story only – the declamatio Greek figure alleged timeline.

This is also why we have such side-stepping descriptions (often even contradicting each other) as to how and from where Hipparchus gained the hundreds of years of star charts he would have needed to have to calculate precession.

Because it’s a lie that it came from Hipparchus, or any “greek” character, for that matter.

Notice that the chart has the earliest marking of solstices and equinoxes as 600 BC. Prior to the archaelogical finds that proved they were lying about this for centuries, that such things were being marked out as far back as 2000 B.C. in Mesopotamia, there is a reason that 600 B.C. was picked as the “earliest” point.

In compiling his famous star catalog (completed in 129 bce), the Greek astronomer Hipparchus noticed that the positions of the stars were shifted in a systematic way from earlier Babylonian (Chaldean) measures. This indicated that it was not the stars that were moving but rather the observing platform—Earth. Such a motion is called precession and consists of a cyclic wobbling in the orientation of Earth’s axis of rotation with a period of 25,772 years. Precession was the third-discovered motion of Earth, after the far more obvious daily rotation and annual revolution. Precession is caused by the gravitational influence of the Sun and the Moon acting on Earth’s equatorial bulge. To a much lesser extent, the planets exert influence as well.

You could roughly say that the requirements to measure precession would include: knowledge of trigonometry and a telescope to properly calculate the distances to the Sun and Moon, the accurate tracking and recording of of solstices and equinoxes, and complete (or essentially complete) records of all such accurate calculations going back at least several hundred years.

So, why does the above passage say Babylonian and more specifically Chaldean measures?

This is another biblically sourced reference, I have not seen any proof that there were any people that called themselves “Chaldeans”. I think this is much like the insistence of historians in calling the Nesilim, as they called themselves, Hittites purely because the bible says that.

But the real reason, to my mind, for this starting date of 600 B.C. on this 1884 chart, is because they had marked the Chaldean time as ending in the mid 5th century B.C., or 550 B.C., and then voila! Conveniently we have these Chaldeans knowledge suddenly showing up in Greek land just 50 years later.

They were trying to make the timeline work to support their declamatio Greek figures, including adding in the so-called progression, in this charted timeline, of almost 500 years of records necessary to make it look like Hipparchus had what he needed to “discover” precession in circa 130 B.C.

And another “work” that Hipparchus did (lost, and with more “lost” references supposedly supporting it) –

Hipparchus also studied precession in On the Length of the Year. Two kinds of year are relevant to understanding his work. The tropical year is the length of time that the Sun, as viewed from the Earth, takes to return to the same position along the ecliptic (its path among the stars on the celestial sphere).

The sidereal year is the length of time that the Sun takes to return to the same position with respect to the stars of the celestial sphere. Precession causes the stars to change their longitude slightly each year, so the sidereal year is longer than the tropical year. Using observations of the equinoxes and solstices, Hipparchus found that the length of the tropical year was 365+1/4-1/300 days, or 365.24667 days (Evans 1998, p. 209). Comparing this with the length of the sidereal year, he calculated that the rate of precession was not less than 1° in a century. From this information, it is possible to calculate that his value for the sidereal year was 365+1/4+1/144 days (Toomer 1978, p. 218). By giving a minimum rate he may have been allowing for errors in observation.

To approximate his tropical year Hipparchus created his own lunisolar calendar by modifying those of Meton and Callippus in On Intercalary Months and Days (now lost), as described by Ptolemy in the Almagest III.1 (Toomer 1984, p. 139). The Babylonian calendar used a cycle of 235 lunar months in 19 years since 499 BC (with only three exceptions before 380 BC), but it did not use a specified number of days.

The Metonic cycle (432 BC) assigned 6,940 days to these 19 years producing an average year of 365+1/4+1/76 or 365.26316 days. The Callippic cycle (330 BC) dropped one day from four Metonic cycles (76 years) for an average year of 365+1/4 or 365.25 days. Hipparchus dropped one more day from four Callipic cycles (304 years), creating the Hipparchic cycle with an average year of 365+1/4-1/304 or 365.24671 days, which was close to his tropical year of 365+1/4-1/300 or 365.24667 days. The three Greek cycles were never used to regulate any civil calendar – they only appear in the Almagest in an astronomical context.

On another topic (and never minding WHO this came from for the moment) it is a very real point that we need to add sidereal year and tropical year to our rough overview of what is needed to calculate precession, because precession causes the stars to change their longitude slightly each year, so the sidereal year is longer than the tropical year.

  • knowledge of trigonometry and a telescope to properly calculate the distances to the Sun and Moon,
  • the accurate tracking and recording of of solstices and equinoxes,
  • tropical year – the length of time that the Sun, as viewed from the Earth, takes to return to the same position along the ecliptic (its path among the stars on the celestial sphere).
  • sidereal year – the length of time that the Sun takes to return to the same position with respect to the stars of the celestial sphere.
  • and complete (or essentially complete) records of all such accurate calculations going back at least several hundred years.

And now from an astronomy lecture on precession –

The phenomenon we call “precession” was discovered by Greek astronomer Hipparchus when he compared his own circa 200 BC records with older charts. What he saw was that the equinoxes in his day (where the sun’s path crosses the celestial equator) were in a different position among the stars than the 150-year-old comparison charts showed. This is due to a gyroscopic wobble of earth’s spin axis that takes 26000 years to complete.

Again, this is referring to the Almagest from the 1496-1515 period, when it was published. Notice how that contradicts this:

Ptolemy, however, claimed to have derived his geometrical models from selected astronomical observations by his predecessors spanning more than 800 years…The Almagest also contains a star catalogue, which is a version of a catalogue created by Hipparchus.

500 years per the charted timeline we discussed earlier, 800 years per Ptolemy’s Almagest, but now we’re contradicting all that with a 350 B.C. figure.

So.

Where is this author getting that 150 year old – meaning 350 B.C. – from? That’s Timarchus, another declamatio figure.

On that note, now that we have the basic sources for this Hipparchus and what he allegedly did figured out, it’s time to see what kind of network we have going here of Greek (and now Babylonian/Chaldean) declamatio figures we have going here. Exactly like what we examined in the first Forging History article – the network of declamatio figures created to support the flood and over-population myths and the creating of fake history in the bible.

But before we leave off here…

There is an interesting (but heavily declamatio bent as to its Greek and other slavemaster interpreted sources) 1969 essay called Hamlet’s Mill which talks about an unidentified Neolithic culture (circa 4000 BCE) establishing a 360 degree circle moving 1 degree every 71.6 years – and there’s that precessional figure again. The authors state that the number was encoded by making it a part of some “Gods” mythology and rounding that number to 72.

The essay was attacked voraciously, but I suspect this may have been a bit of a set-up and spike. For one reason, because these authors treated figures like Hipparchus as real. For another, they used bad translations and put together sources that didn’t belong and were just as questionable as Hipparchus.

Critics of Hamlet’s Mill have stated, “We know there was no advanced ancient civilization, so this book arguing that there was must not be taken seriously” and that de Santillana and von Dechend’s insistence that there was some ancient unified culture or civilization is “pure fantasy” and that therefore their attempts to assemble details of such a culture can be “no more than an intellectual game“.

One of the more ridiculously flawed critiques is by Gary Thompson, who produced a deliberately convoluted and difficult read, in my opinion. One clearly meant not to shed light or truly explore in any kind of non-religious self-protecting kind of way, the idea that history as we know it has been falsified. No. This treatise is more geared to basically overwhelm most readers from even thinking they could possibly understand any of this, let alone formulate arguments accurately on the premise that particularly astronomical knowledge has been encoded.

On of my favorite, truly ridiculous (and very Jesuit sub-understandng tactics) arguments he presents is this:

According to de Santillana, throughout history the most advanced scientific knowledge is grasped only by a handful of people. My only comment is why didn’t the channels of communication – whatever they supposedly were – also get used to carry other technical information such as metalworking.

When you get past all the long and rambling cites every which direction? That’s it. That’s his only argument. Not much of one, now is it. Not very scientific, and certainly not very convincing of anything other than an ability to throw rhetoric tactics around.

I would also like to point out that by the very act of choosing weak grounds to rest their claims upon, the Hamlet’s Mill authors were setting themselves up to be attacked, thereby enabling “authorities” to appear able to shoot them down – like a strawman debate tactic.

Now, did they do that deliberately? You be the judge.

The “How” – Hipparchus

1.1 Examining the Declamatio network of “ancient” figures

Sockpuppets, in other words

First, we will round up all the names that are supposedly related to Hipparchus and particularly his works on trigonometry and precession, star charts, etc., then make a simplified list at the end.

It’s been said that the mark of a “good con” is the details. Personal details, things like noting eclipses that can be verified with our technology now as having happened in B.C., arguments between supposed characters, personal quirks, all of these are employed by the declamatio writers to make these ‘people’ seem like they are real and actually existed.

For example, this character related to the Hipparchus network. Look at how he gets described –

Strabo – (meaning “squinty”, as in strabismus) was a term employed by the Romans for anyone whose eyes were distorted or deformed.

They chose a nickname, a crippled kind of one, for one of the characters. See how it sucks you right into the narrative? That is intentional. It is a con tactic to MIMIC real life.

REAL life is always better, just like REAL history, but not compared to nothing.

Understand?

Their stuff only looks good or interesting in a total void. A void in the sense that the actual truth is not given as an option or choice. Trust me, as REAL history starts getting put back into play, noone is going to want to have anything to do with their – what will then be clearly seen as – retarded versions of history.

And they are very retarded.

Exactly as you would think a creation would be, when made by man-loving, woman-hating, lovers-of-torture-and-suffering, rejects wandering around in robes and pretending they are “good”.

So, let’s see what those men have created here starting with this basic description in wikipedia –

Most of what is known about Hipparchus comes from Strabo’s Geography and Pliny’s Natural History in the 1st century; Ptolemy’s 2nd-century Almagest; and additional references to him in the 4th century by Pappus of Alexandria and Theon of Alexandria in their commentaries on the Almagest.

Strabo first.

*Strabo is cited in Geographica, published in Latin in Pope Nicholas V’s time and then in Greek (to help make it look more authentic and to align with their new “Greek” schools) in 1516, in Venice. Nicholas’s declamatio authors have Strabo acknowledging antique Greek astronomers Eratosthenes and Hipparchus, for their “astronomical and mathematical efforts towards geography.”

 

That Eratosthenes character? There is one huge network of decamatio characters all supposedly revolving around him. The declamatio authors have attributed everything from discovering geography to the circumference of the earth and all manner of “science” to this guy. Ridiculous, but you need to see all the con-tactics invented personal details about him –

He was a figure of influence in many fields. According to an entry[5] in the Suda (a 10th-century reference), his critics scorned him, calling him Beta (the second letter of the Greek alphabet) because he always came in second in all his endeavors.[6] Nonetheless, his devotees nicknamed him Pentathlos after the Olympians who were well rounded competitors, for he had proven himself to be knowledgeable in every area of learning. Eratosthenes yearned to understand the complexities of the entire world.

We’re adding nicknames now, really? Calling him Beta “because he always came in second”?

Come on.

In his three-volume work Geography (Greek: Geographika), he described and mapped his entire known world…

and buried way, way down in the colorful ever-so-authoritative description, what do we see?

Unfortunately, his Geography has been lost to history,[how?] but fragments of the work can be pieced together from other great historians like Pliny, Polybius, Strabo, and Marcianus.

NOTHING left of his works, plus we’re right back to Pliny and Strabo again, with a couple other just as dubious declamatio additions as being the only “sources”.

Note: You gotta love whoever the wikipeda editor was that wrote “how?” Maybe after all, someone else is waking up from that total coma of fairy tales by Catholic and British slavemasters called history.

By the way, this Strabo character also shows up as part of a big network trying to help tie up the loose ends on the Flood and Overpopulation myth declamatio writings of the Bible. See Forging History first article.

Next we have –

Pliny.

*Pliny cites Hipparchus in Natural History (Latin: Naturalis Historia). This is a book about the whole of the natural world in Latin by Pliny the Elder, a Roman author and naval commander who supposedly lived in 0-79 A.D. The work is divided into 37 books, organised into ten volumes.

The first topic covered is Astronomy, in Book II. Pliny starts with the known universe, roundly criticising attempts at cosmology as madness, including the view that there are countless other worlds than the Earth. He records the seven “planets” including the sun and moon. He mentions eclipses, but considers Hipparchus’s almanac grandiose for seeming to know how Nature works. He cites Posidonius’s estimate that the moon is 230,000 miles away. He describes comets, noting that only Aristotle has recorded seeing more than one at once.

 

This work is also cited as: Pliny’s continuation of Bassus’s History was one of the authorities followed by Suetonius and Plutarch.

Watch the lying going on about the problems with the history of this supposed ancient writing –

Pliny’s last work, according to his nephew, was the Naturalis Historia (literally Of Natural History), an encyclopedia into which he collected much of the knowledge of his time…The date of an overall composition cannot be assigned to any one year. The dates of different parts must be determined, if they can, by philological analysis (the “post-mortem” of the scholars).

The closest known event to a single publication date; that is, when the manuscript was probably released to the public for borrowing and copying, and was probably sent to the Flavians, is the date of the Dedication in the first of the 37 books. It is to the imperator Titus. As Titus and Vespasian had the same name, Titus Flavius Vespasianus, earlier writers hypothesized a dedication to Vespasian. Pliny’s mention of a brother (Domitian) and joint offices with a father, calling that father “great”, points certainly to Titus.

…Pliny’s Natural History was written alongside other substantial works (which have since been lost)

…The absence of the author’s final revision may explain many errors, including why the text is as John Healy writes “disjointed, discontinuous and not in a logical order”; and as early as 1350, Petrarch complained about the corrupt state of the text, referring to copying errors made between the ninth and eleventh centuries.

(Petrarch being yet another declamatio character already debunked in Forging History first article)

And yet…suddenly this Pliny book, that was lost and then magically became this alleged “disjointed” text….well. Buried in all these oodles of pretending it existed ALL that time since the first century A.D., you find out that it first appeared in 1499 in Venice.

Ah. That time period. Of course.

We even get backdated Pliny “manuscripts” as being “from” mid 1100’s but the book is from 1635!

Pliny 1635 November 2017 ebay listing

Then we get things like this –

The Natural History of Pliny “in a mid-12th-century manuscript” from the Abbaye de Saint Vincent, Le Mans, France

The date is false, just because it is in a BOOK doesn’t make the written in date of the supposed ancient manuscript accurate.

Supposedly there are about 200 extant manuscripts, but none of them are complete – as in the Pliny Naturalis Historia complete. It’s difficult to explain away such lies as to how did a book get written when there was no complete anything anywhere to write it from!

The Brits get mixed up in this whole particular declamatio creation, where we get a backdated “Robert of Cricklade” supposedly writing the Defloratio Historiae Naturalis Plinii Secundi consisting of nine books of selections taken “from an ancient manuscript.” in 1141. Another false date.

We get another Brit declamatio fabrication, their own kind of pseudo-archaeology as well, at the Bamberg Library collection. See Bamberg images – referred to as manuscripts of Henry II.

The nucleus of the collection may be traced back to the emperor Henry II, who founded the bishopric of Bamberg in 1007. Among his gifts to the cathedral were many precious manuscripts, which he and his predecessors had collected or commissioned. Manuscripts from various spiritual centres of the Western world were brought to Bamberg as a result. In the ensuing period many books were written and illuminated in the town, notably in the 12th century by the Benedictine monks of the Michaelsberg Abbey.

Benedictine monks? Oh brother. More Catholic declamatio authors. Not to mention just who was this Henry II character? Just about as Nesilim as they come, that’s who.

Henry II, Holy Roman Emperor

as in Nesilim double-headed eagle symbol
as in Nesilim Kings and Priests (Popes) united.

Henry II (German: Heinrich II; Italian: Enrico II) (6 May 973 – 13 July 1024), also known as Saint Henry, Obl. S. B.,[a] was Holy Roman Emperor (“Romanorum Imperator”) from 1014 until his death in 1024 and the last member of the Ottonian dynasty of Emperors as he had no children. The Duke of Bavaria from 995, Henry became King of Germany (“Rex Romanorum”) following the sudden death of his second cousin, Emperor Otto III in 1002, was crowned King of Italy (“Rex Italiae”) in 1004, and was crowned by the Pope as Emperor in 1014.

An interesting point is that the 1499 “book” of Pliny, Naturalis Historia, doesn’t even get translated into english until 1601 and then again in 1855.

Another strangely interesting convergence with this book is that Wikipedia associates this diagram that we used earlier, which was said to be from Ptolemy’s Almagest, now positioned as being in Pliny’s book too. I refer to the diagram supposedly sourcing to “how” Hipparchus calculated the distances to the Sun and Moon.

This one –

Chalk that up to yet another manifestation of the problems when dealing with lies and fabricated “sources”.

Speaking of which –

Now watch wikipedia editors lie about this Pliny book

It is one of the largest single works to have survived from the Roman Empire to the modern day and purports to cover all ancient knowledge, creating the “encyclopedia” model.

Did it now…

Well, the facts are that his “work” did not appear in ANY verifiable form until exactly the same time as Strabo’s Geographica. They were both first published in Pope Nicholas V’s time, but the only real version to be seen is actually from 1499, which was under the reign of Pope Alexander VI – the Borgia. (Rodrigo de Borja).

Naturalis Historia printed by Johannes Alvisius in 1499 in Venice, Italy.

It should not go unremarked that this Pope who supported the printing of this book (as opposed to banning it) had also confirmed slavery.

Pope Alexander was asked by the Spanish monarchy to confirm their ownership of the newly found lands by Columbus (1492 expedition). Pope Alexander then issued several bulls: Eximiae devotionis (3 May 1493), Inter caetera (4 May 1493) and Dudum Siquidem (23 September 1493), granting rights to Spain exactly like those Pope Nicholas V had previously conferred with the bulls Romanus Pontifex and Dum Diversas.

Pope Nicholas V had issued Dum Diversas (English: Until different) on 18 June 1452. It authorized King Alfonso V of Portugal to basically “attack, conquer, and subjugate Saracens, pagans and other enemies of Christ wherever they may be found.” He also said that they should be reduced to “perpetual slavery” ( perpetuam servitutem ). What this means is – ANY non-Christians were now reduced to the status of slaves.

Nicholas then proceeded to enrich himself and the treasury of the Church through this sanctioning of slavery by the creation of the ‘sugar-slave complex’. Sugar is first planted in the Portuguese island of Madeira and, for the first time, African slaves are now forced to work. They were taken to these plantations on a work-or-die mandate.

It was two years later, on January 8, 1455, Nicholas issued Romanus Pontifex. It basically repeated the earlier bull’s permission for the enslavement of such peoples deemed infidel and pagan, but buried in the sub-text was literally a sanctioning of the purchase of black slaves from “the infidel” – meaning the Ottomans who had just taken over Constantinople. In other words – the slaver is going to buy slaves purely to keep the other slavers from having them to enrich their empire, is what this boils down to.

I just want you to understand the climate of what is going on when Nicholas lover-of-declamatios successor, Pope Alexander (the Borgia) allowed the publication of so-called Pliny and his Naturalis Historica.

It should also not go unremarked that it was under this same Pope that the declamatio works of Ptolemy, so often cited as proof of Hipparchus, also first showed up. Keep that in mind as we go along here in this network, because its not exactly what I’d call establishing credibility that these kind of Popes were approving of these books.

Liars all.

Next – look at all the fabricated personal details and attitudes put into this description of Pliny and how all the other works are lost except his. Does that sound likely to you?  –

Pliny’s Natural History was written alongside other substantial works (which have since been lost). Pliny (23–79) combined his scholarly activities with a busy career as an imperial administrator for the emperor Vespasian. Much of his writing was done at night; daytime hours were spent working for the emperor, as he explains in the dedicatory preface addressed to Vespasian’s elder son, the future emperor Titus, with whom he had served in the army. As for the nocturnal hours spent writing, these were seen not as a loss of sleep but as an addition to life, for as he states in the preface, Vita vigilia est, “to be alive is to be watchful”, in a military metaphor of a sentry keeping watch in the night. Pliny claims to be the only Roman ever to have undertaken such a work, in his prayer for the blessing of the universal mother:

And the ubiquitous “commentary” on his book by other decamatio figures:

“As full of variety as nature itself”, stated Pliny’s nephew, Pliny the Younger…

And the use of their (the Vatican slavemasters) records of events to try and make it look like Pliny LIVED at a particular time –

…and this verdict largely explains the appeal of the Natural History since Pliny’s death in the eruption of Vesuvius in AD 79. Pliny had gone to investigate the strange cloud – “shaped like an umbrella pine”, according to his nephew – rising from the mountain.

…Pliny’s dates are pinned to the eruption of Mount Vesuvius in AD 79 and a statement of his nephew that he died in his 56th year, which would put his birth in AD 23 or 24.

Cehrist. What a load of….never mind.

The other half of the slavemasters, the British nobility, have even engaged in promoting a little pseudo-archaeology of their own, in attempting to prove the existence of “Pliny” as a person in “Roman times”. The British nobility have their own vested interest in trying to prove they are “Romans” and “Greeks” descendants to establish their hegemony. It’s like an argument over who is the HOLY ROMAN EMPEROR or perhaps better put as top dog of the Nesilim. They’re always arguing about that.

Check the description for this supposed “Pliny” artifact.

One of the Xanten Horse-Phalerae located in the British Museum, measuring 10.5 cm (4.1 in).It bears an inscription formed from punched dots: PLINIO PRAEF EQ; i.e. Plinio praefecto equitum, “Pliny prefect of cavalry”. It was perhaps issued to every man in Pliny’s unit. The figure is the bust of the emperor.

Wow. In Latin and everything! Must be true. <gack> Perhaps is right.

By the way –

Engaging in a little further pseudo-archaeology to support the Hipparchus lie, we even have fabricated coins! Bithynia was supposedly – got to take this with a grain of salt, a large one – a region in modern day Turkey. This poor guys thesis also goes on about coins from this area, much like wikipeda does, and appears to be trying to make the point (using declamatio sources) that all this is true history. It isn’t.

In the 2nd and 3rd centuries coins were made in his honour in Bithynia that bear his name and show him with a globe; this supports the tradition that he was born there. – wikipedia

In case you didn’t know “the tradition” is a very particular term. It’s like a Jesuit sub-understanding term meaning MYTH or LIE. Seen any pictures of these coins? (usually not provided by sources out there)

Well, here’s one and I’m trying to keep a straight face about it –

supposed hipparchus coin

Right. We see a faceless guy wearing what looks to be a Nesilim beanie hat sitting by a globe. Well, then. It must be Hipparchus.

Aw hell. I can’t stand it.

Need Vincent for that one.

On a humorous note, when putting that coin image to Google’s similar image result, look what it came up with as a guess –

In other words, it’s bogus that coin has anything to do with Hipparchus.

Next we have –

Ptolemy and the Almagest, whom we have already discussed. Anything BY him from 200 B.C. or whatever, is “lost”, and the Almagest shows up at the same time as the Pliny and Strabo books.

An example showing that mostly anything about Hipparchus is from the Almagest –

Only one work by Hipparchus has survived, and this is certainly not one of his major works. Most of the information which we have about the work of Hipparchus comes from Ptolemy.

However, from within the “lord of the rings” story in the Almagest, we get two other names as who Hipparchus supposedly got his “ancient records” of specific star calculations from. Two more declamatio figures were invented to try and shore up the story that Hipparchus was the first to discover precession, you see.

Timocharis and Aristillus.

What little is known about Timocharis and Aristillus comes from citations by Ptolemy in the Almagest. These indicate that the two worked “together” in Alexandria during the 290s and 280s BC. Ptolemy lists the declination of 18 stars as recorded by Timocharis or Aristillus in roughly the year 290 BC.

There is absolutely NOTHING anywhere proving these two ever existed, except within the pages of the commissioned declamatio work Almagest.

Two other declamatio figures are introduced in Almagest supposedly having records of the summer solstice of 432 BC.

Euctemon and Meton.

They are only exceeded by records of the summer solstice of 432 BC, as noted by Euctemon and Meton – also only mentioned in Ptolemy.

Check out the con details going on about this character Meton.

Meton appears briefly as a character in Aristophanes’ play The Birds (414 BC). He comes on stage carrying surveying instruments and is described as a geometer.

What little is known of Meton come through ancient historians. According to Ptolemy, a stela or table erected in Athens contained a record of Meton’s observations, and a description of the Metonic cycle. None of Meton’s works survive.

There is absolutely NOTHING anywhere proving these two ever existed either, except within the pages of the commissioned declamatio work Almagest.

But see that name Aristophanes? That’s a lovely little con detail to have been added in here, sarcastically speaking. The only thing even vaguely pointing to his existence are some plays that were said to be by him but didn’t appear anywhere until another con detail was needed to support the “tree” of bs characters trying to prove where the astronomical and scientific knowledge came from – and perhaps more importantly, to cover up and distract from where it did originate.

Even the wikipedia editors know there’s something off here –

his plays are the main source of information about him and his life

But my god, could they try any harder to draw people into all manner of total bullshit supposedly about this character? Pages and pages of it. Whooph! This one is primarily British slavemaster sourced or “declamatioed”, by the way. Oxford this, that, and the other thing.

You have to go all the way past all kinds of useless discussion and analysis of “his” plays to get to some semblance of answering the question: Yea, so where’s the proof he existed?

Under Surviving Plays we get this big list.

  • The Acharnians (Ἀχαρνεῖς Akharneis; Attic Ἀχαρνῆς; Acharnenses) 425 BC
  • The Knights (Ἱππεῖς Hippeis; Attic Ἱππῆς; Latin: Equites) 424 BC
  • The Clouds (Νεφέλαι Nephelai; Latin: Nubes); original 423 BC, uncompleted revised version from 419 BC – 416 BC survives
  • The Wasps (Σφῆκες Sphekes; Latin: Vespae) 422 BC
  • Peace (Εἰρήνη Eirene; Latin: Pax) first version, 421 BC
  • The Birds (Ὄρνιθες Ornithes; Latin: Aves) 414 BC
  • Lysistrata (Λυσιστράτη Lysistrate) 411 BC
  • Thesmophoriazusae or The Women Celebrating the Thesmophoria (Θεσμοφοριάζουσαι Thesmophoriazousai) first version c.411 BC
  • The Frogs (Βάτραχοι Batrakhoi; Latin: Ranae) 405 BC
  • Ecclesiazusae or The Assemblywomen; (Ἐκκλησιάζουσαι Ekklesiazousai) c. 392 BC
  • Wealth (Πλοῦτος Ploutos; Latin Plutus) second version, 388 BC

If you click on each one and only look for ANY proof these ever existed in 300-400 BC?

Nothing.

 

But under that “Clouds” one, a play supposedly about Socrates and his son, we do see when this first actually showed up. In the 1500’s, as usual, and that happens to be right about when the Brits first joined the declamatio fray, to boot.

Strepsiades, his son, and Socrates in a basket
(from a 16th-century engraving)

And yet: “No copy of the original production survives.”

Final note #1 – Wikipedia is really losing its mind on these entries. Know what they do on several of them? They’re running pseudo-archaeology scams on readers. They included this archaeological find as somehow being a kind of proof of Aristophanes plays, and this vase described as “Apulian krater with scene from Thesmophoriazusae, c. 370 BC.” as supposedly being proof of Aristophanes play Thesmophoriazusae. To support the “Frogs” play this vase is put up as supposed proof. Complete LIES, all of it. I mean really, the Frogs one is particularly obvious. I’ve seen representative art on vases that are really from from 3 and 600 BC and they don’t look anything like this, these are total fabrications.

It shouldn’t also surprise you much that many of these plays display marked mysoginistic tendencies – very Catholic man-lovers of them.

Final note #2 – If you look at the Archanians one, this is used repeatedly as some kind of source reference for the declamatio figures in all the other plays as well as support in documenting fake Roman and Greek history timelines! Seriously, they are actually trying to float that boat. I can only say Oy Vey! to that one.

Final note #3 – this character Aristophanes lives in the later created Socrates and Plato declamatio network – a whole other thing, but just as much declamatio – aka bullshit history – as the earlier Pliny, Strabo, Ptolemy and Hipparchus. The Brits just blended the newer created characters in amongst the older ones. Not like the Catholics could say much about it, since they were lying too, right? I find that very humorous, myself.

The sick part, well, one of them, is how many hundreds of hours of peoples lives have been utterly wasted trying to discuss the finer parts of Greek declamatio “plays” bullshit whilehaving been made to believe that its ACTUAL history?

Seriously.

At least the Trekkies (mostly) know what they’re revolving around is fictional and don’t try to go around proving Captain Kirk really does exist. It’s a sad state of affairs when laughed at Trekkies have a better grip on reality than most historians.

There are more figures to add underneath the Pliny and Ptolemy network.

We also have –

Pappus – with his own personal declamatio assigned, but not until 1589.

Title page of Pappus’s Mathematicae Collectiones, translated into Latin by Federico Commandino (1589).

And we have the use of star charts, calculating ancient solar eclipses then used as supposed proof of Pappus.

…However, a real date comes from the dating of a solar eclipse mentioned by Pappus himself, when in his commentary on the Almagest he calculates “the place and time of conjunction which gave rise to the eclipse in Tybi in 1068 after Nabonassar”. This works out as October 18, 320 AD, and so Pappus must have flourished c. 320 AD.

And yet, nothing has survived of his works either.

The great work of Pappus, in eight books and titled Synagoge or Collection, has not survived in complete form: the first book is lost, and the rest have suffered considerably.

***Very important – Concealing numerical values and star-chart (travel distances) in Greek Poetry, discusses CODING in Pliny book.

The whole of Book II (the former part of which is lost, the existing fragment beginning in the middle of the 14th proposition) discusses a method of multiplication from an unnamed book by Apollonius of Perga. The final propositions deal with multiplying together the numerical values of Greek letters in two lines of poetry, producing two very large numbers approximately equal to 2*1054 and 2*1038.

Then there is –

Theon.

Again, we have the same use of star charts, ancient records, to be noted as “proof” of one of these characters existence.

He made predictions and observances of solar and lunar eclipses in 364 which show he was active at that time, and he is said to have lived during the reign of Theodosius I (379–395).The biographical tradition of the tenth century Byzantine Suda defines Theon as “the man from the Mouseion”; however, both the Library of Alexandria and the original Mouseion were probably destroyed by the fourth century.

He is used to prove the existence of fellow declamatio characters Euclid and Ptolemy as well.

It is known that Theon edited the Elements of Euclid. He may also have edited some other works by Euclid and Ptolemy, although here the evidence is less certain. The editions ascribed to Theon are:

*Euclid’s Elements. Theon’s edition of the Elements was the only known version until Francois Peyrard discovered an older copy of the Elements in the Vatican Library in 1808.

*Ptolemy’s Handy Tables. A collection of astronomical tables originally compiled by Ptolemy

None of the works have survived.

Treatise on the Astrolabe. Both the Suda and Arabic sources attribute to Theon a work on the astrolabe. This work has not survived, but it may have been the first ever treatise on the astrolabe, and it was important in transmitting Greek knowledge on this instrument to later ages.

What is this SUDA?

An alleged work from the rise of the Nesilim time in Europe.

Little is known of the compilation of this work, except that it must have been written before it was quoted from extensively by Eustathius who lived from about 1115 AD to about 1195 or 1196. Under the heading “Adam” the author of the lexicon (which a prefatory note states to be “by Suidas”) gives a brief chronology of the world, ending with the death of the emperor John I Tzimiskes (975), and the article “Constantinople” mentions his successors Basil II (976–1025) and Constantine VIII (1025–1028). It would thus appear that the Suda was compiled sometime after 975.

The work deals with biblical as well as pagan subjects, from which it is inferred that the writer was a Christian. A prefatory note gives a list of dictionaries from which the lexical portion was compiled, together with the names of their authors. Although the work is uncritical and probably much interpolated, and the value of its articles is very unequal, the Suda contains much useful information on ancient history and life. Its quotations from ancient authors make it a useful check on their manuscript traditions.

And yet…when does it show up where we can actually SEE it? 1542. Clearly it is one of the declamatio works meant to help shore up the others, evident in this Wikipedia description: The first printed edition, by Majoranus, was published in Rome in 1542-1550 (4 vols., fol.)

Next we have –

Aristotle.

Now there’s a declamatio character that just about everyone knows, mixed in as supposedly “knowing” or commenting on all kinds of other declamatio figures, anywhere to Hipparchus.

Hipparchus … As an astronomer of antiquity his influence, supported by ideas from Aristotle..

These lines say it all:

Little is known for certain about his life.

In general, the details of Aristotle’s life are not well-established.

He wrote many dialogues, of which only fragments have survived

Check out this very, very tricky wording.

The works of Aristotle that have survived from antiquity through medieval manuscript transmission are collected in the Corpus Aristotelicum. These texts, as opposed to Aristotle’s lost works, are technical philosophical treatises from within Aristotle’s school.

In other words, they had nothing but an invention that was supposedly passed around, and even that is admitted to not even be BY the guy.

That’s it.

What do we get instead? Promotion of him and equally fictional Plato in an imaginary painted scene, right exactly at the same time period practically every other declamatio character shows up. Plus there[s even some pseudo-archaeology in supposed Islam paintings as well as a number of other fanciful paintings as well, mostly done in the 15-1600 time frame.

Plato (left) and Aristotle in Raphael’s 1509 fresco, The School of Athens.

And yet…this declamatio character is credited with anywhere from discovering “logic” to “metaphysics” as well as having some pretty nasty views about women and his fellow humans.

Strangely…(I’m being facetious) exactly the same views as the Catholic and British slavemasters at the time, but especially the Catholics.

Let’s put together a list of what we have now, to finish this off.

 

Authors invented to shore up the declamatio Hipparchus character –

Strabo “squinty-eyed”

**Fictional Strabo network

Eratosthenes “Beta” – huge network all tied under him.
Eudoxus
Delambre
Callipsus
Pliny
the Elder (see below) supposedly “reconstructed Strabo’s works”.
Plutarch – already part of the network used to “substantiate” biblical fairy tales, as was Strabo, aka the Fictional Jerome Secondary Supporting Network of Eusebius and Pausanias. See first Forging History article.
Aratus
Pappas/Pappus
Theon

Pliny the Elder

**Fictional Pliny network

Pliny the Younger “acknowledging” works of Pliny the Elder
Petrarch
Bede
Bassus (supposedly wrote a history followed by Suetonius and Plutarch) and helped Pliny.
Suetonius
Plutarch
Posidonius – estimate that the moon is 230,000 miles away
Hipparchus
“Robert of Cricklade” – supposedly writing the Defloratio Historiae Naturalis Plinii Secundi consisting of nine books of selections taken “from an ancient manuscript.” (British declamatio)
“Benedictine Monks” – Henry II Bamberg collection Pliny “written” by  (British declamatio)

Ptolemy

**Fictional Ptolemy network

Timocharis
Pappus of Alexandria

**Secondary fictional Pappus network

Apollonius of Perga – that’s the numbers coded into Greek poetry dude

Theon of Alexandria – commentaries on the Almagest

**Secondary fictional Theon network

Euclid
Esutathus
Suidas
– the SUDA which supposedly mentions Theon, Ptolemy etc. The first printed edition, by Majoranus, was published in Rome in 1542-1550

Aristillus

**Secondary fictional Aristillus network

Euclid

Euctemon
Callipus
Meton

**Secondary fictional Meton network

Aristophanes – plays are assigned to him used to reveal details of other declamatio Greek and historical figures and events. Huge network: examples: Socrates and son Strepsiades, Aristotle and Plato.

 

I gotta say it. What the hell is wrong with these people that they would lie to humanity like this? And still do. This is unconscionable and it needs to stop.

Really needs to stop.

The “How” – Hipparchus

1.2 Why was Hipparchus invented?

As should be quite obvious to you by now, Hipparchus was invented to shield where such advanced knowledge actually came from and from when.

Buried in the supposed works of Pliny the Elder, ie: Astronomy Book II, (one of the main sources helping to create the Hipparchus declamatio) was a very odd statement.

Pliny starts with the known universe, roundly criticising attempts at cosmology as madness, including the view that there are countless other worlds than the Earth.

That, is a dead giveaway.

Worlds, in that sense, only meant one thing.

Inhabited planets.

Since we now know that Pliny’s “book” wasn’t anywhere, didn’t really exist in the form we are given to see until the usual period of declamatios (late 1400’s and into the 1500’s) this reveals that someone was starting to “go there” in that time period.

“Go there” in the sense of questioning their declamatios – which caused them to invent a false one as a straw man to shoot down ie:pseudo-Berossus – questioning just how did they have these extremely accurate star charts when telescopes hadn’t even been “invented” yet? – as far as most people knew. And, worst of all, questioning the fact that this kind of accurate star-charting isn’t really necessary for religious reasons, it couldn’t possibly be the real, the only reason.

But it damn well is necessary for one very stand-out thing.

Star travel.

Which means…somebody wasn’t from around here.

The Truth – Babylon and the Nesilim

– 1.1 Background: Culture, Star and Planet Charts, building orientation, etc.

 

Ptolemy’s Almagest is the only surviving comprehensive ancient treatise on astronomy. Babylonian astronomers had developed arithmetical techniques for calculating astronomical phenomena…”

– Wikipedia

Painting of Ptolemy with sphere model,
As imagined by Joos van Ghent and Pedro Berruguete in 1476

Ptolemy’s cosmos – Spot the two deliberately presented lies there.

The celestial realm is spherical, and moves as a sphere.
The Earth is a sphere.
The Earth is at the center of the cosmos.
The Earth, in relation to the distance of the fixed stars, has no appreciable size and must be treated as a mathematical point.
The Earth does not move.

Ptolemy’s planetary model
As imagined by Peter Apian in Cosmographia, 1524

 

Ptolemy planetary order, innermost (to Earth) first –

Moon
Mercury
Venus
Sun
Mars
Jupiter
Saturn
Sphere of fixed stars

From Stars to Waves

when early astronomers were trying to chart the night sky, doing astronomy meant doing geometry involving spheres—and that meant being able to do geometry involving circles. Looking at two stars on the celestial sphere, we can ask how far apart they are. We can formulate this …

Triangles in the Sky

By carefully observing their wanderings over many years, the ancient Babylonians observed that all the planets seem to move along roughly the same path through the stars. That path became known as the ecliptic.

The ecliptic is more accurately defined as the apparent annual path of the sun through the stars.

In ancient times you would see (roughly) the constellation Capricorn in January, Aquarius in February, Pisces in March, Aries in April, Taurus in May, Gemini in June, Cancer in July, Leo in August, Virgo in September, Libra in October, Scorpio in November, and Sagittarius in December. These, of course, are the well-known signs of the zodiac; in fact, this is where the zodiac comes from. The sun, moon, and planets all appear to wander through the constellations of the zodiac. More specifically, the sun completes one cycle through the zodiac in one year, moving in an apparent circle around the earth. This circle is the ecliptic.

– – –

Wikipedia the math – explanations attributed to Hipparchus.

The following is declamatio character Ptolemy written as alleging that equally declamatio character Hipparchus gave an account of his “discoveries” in a book that doesn’t exist anywhere but within the pages of the declamatio Almagest work. That book being On the Displacement of the Solsticial and Equinoctial Points (described in Almagest III.1 and VII.2).

He measured the ecliptic longitude of the star Spica during lunar eclipses and found that it was about 6° west of the autumnal equinox. By comparing his own measurements with those of Timocharis of Alexandria (a contemporary of Euclid, who worked with Aristillus early in the 3rd century BC), he found that Spica’s longitude had decreased by about 2° in the meantime (exact years are not mentioned in Almagest). Also in VII.2, Ptolemy gives more precise observations of two stars, including Spica and concludes that in each case a 2°:40′ change occurred during 128 BC and AD 139 (hence, 1° per century or one full cycle in 36000 years, that is, the precessional period of Hipparchus as reported by Ptolemy ; cf. page 328 in Toomer’s translation of Almagest, 1998 edition)). He also noticed this motion in other stars. He speculated that only the stars near the zodiac shifted over time. Ptolemy called this his “first hypothesis” (Almagest VII.1), but did not report any later hypothesis Hipparchus might have devised. Hipparchus apparently limited his speculations, because he had only a few older observations, which were not very reliable.

Why did Hipparchus need a lunar eclipse to measure the position of a star? The equinoctial points are not marked in the sky, so he needed the Moon as a reference point. Hipparchus already had developed a way to calculate the longitude of the Sun at any moment. A lunar eclipse happens during Full moon, when the Moon is in opposition. At the midpoint of the eclipse, the Moon is precisely 180° from the Sun. Hipparchus is thought to have measured the longitudinal arc separating Spica from the Moon. To this value, he added the calculated longitude of the Sun, plus 180° for the longitude of the Moon. He did the same procedure with Timocharis’ data (Evans 1998, p. 251). Observations such as these eclipses, incidentally, are the main source of data about when Hipparchus worked, since other biographical information about him is minimal. The lunar eclipses he observed, for instance, took place on April 21, 146 BC, and March 21, 135 BC (Toomer 1984, p. 135 n. 14).

Hipparchus also studied precession in On the Length of the Year. Two kinds of year are relevant to understanding his work. The tropical year is the length of time that the Sun, as viewed from the Earth, takes to return to the same position along the ecliptic (its path among the stars on the celestial sphere). The sidereal year is the length of time that the Sun takes to return to the same position with respect to the stars of the celestial sphere. Precession causes the stars to change their longitude slightly each year, so the sidereal year is longer than the tropical year. Using observations of the equinoxes and solstices, Hipparchus found that the length of the tropical year was 365+1/4−1/300 days, or 365.24667 days (Evans 1998, p. 209). Comparing this with the length of the sidereal year, he calculated that the rate of precession was not less than 1° in a century. From this information, it is possible to calculate that his value for the sidereal year was 365+1/4+1/144 days (Toomer 1978, p. 218). By giving a minimum rate he may have been allowing for errors in observation.

To approximate his tropical year Hipparchus created his own lunisolar calendar by modifying those of Meton and Callippus in On Intercalary Months and Days (now lost), as described by Ptolemy in the Almagest III.1 (Toomer 1984, p. 139). The Babylonian calendar used a cycle of 235 lunar months in 19 years since 499 BC (with only three exceptions before 380 BC), but it did not use a specified number of days. The Metonic cycle (432 BC) assigned 6,940 days to these 19 years producing an average year of 365+1/4+1/76 or 365.26316 days. The Callippic cycle (330 BC) dropped one day from four Metonic cycles (76 years) for an average year of 365+1/4 or 365.25 days. Hipparchus dropped one more day from four Callippic cycles (304 years), creating the Hipparchic cycle with an average year of 365+1/4−1/304 or 365.24671 days, which was close to his tropical year of 365+1/4−1/300 or 365.24667 days.

We find Hipparchus’s mathematical signatures in the Antikythera Mechanism, an ancient astronomical computer of the second century BC. The mechanism is based on a solar year, the Metonic Cycle, which is the period the Moon reappears in the same star in the sky with the same phase (full Moon appears at the same position in the sky approximately in 19 years), the Callipic cycle (which is four Metonic cycles and more accurate), the Saros cycle and the Exeligmos cycles (three Saros cycles for the accurate eclipse prediction). The study of the Antikythera Mechanism proves that the ancients have been using very accurate calendars based on all the aspects of solar and lunar motion in the sky. In fact, the Lunar Mechanism which is part of the Antikythera Mechanism depicts the motion of the Moon and its phase, for a given time, using a train of four gears with a pin and slot device which gives a variable lunar velocity that is very close to the second law of Kepler, i.e. it takes into account the fast motion of the Moon at perigee and slower motion at apogee. This discovery proves that Hipparchus mathematics were much more advanced than Ptolemy describes in his books, as it is evident that he developed a good approximation of Kepler΄s second law.

Yea. Well.

That was a whole lot of blah blah blah, wasn’t it? Might as well be a kind of word salad because it isn’t like it makes much sense to anyone more than just a small little clique of nomenclature Nazis.

Don’t worry. We’ll do a much better explanation as we go along here, cuz we are most definitely not “experts”. We actually want to understand – not just sound like we do – and we want others to understand as well.

Earlier, we looked at a quote from a Jesuit named Mueller who said: “If we are doing math, if we are doing science—for that matter, if we are doing art—any human activity done with generosity and reverence is acting in God’s image. Science is included in that.”

I mentioned that apparently their “God” is a liar, but I want to take that in another direction now. WHY lie is the real point of convergence. Their “God” is hiding something.

As are they – the “men” of God.

When it comes to lying, some people say that the what, where and when of lies point right to what’s being hidden. What is being protected. What isn’t wanted to be known.

If that’s the case, then we know from all this lying about where the mathematical and scientific knowledge, techniques, and records came from? Points straight to the area where – or the ‘when’ – that is being hidden.

I would like to share with you some information about that where, about that when, that I think has bearing on all this. Since we know there is a tremendous amount of lying going on in the area of Babylon and about a people called the Nesilim, that’s a good place to start.

There is also an awful lot of resistance by very specific groups of people towards anyone attempting to go in that direction. I’ll talk a bit more about that later, but just to give you one example now, remember the article I quoted from earlier about the trigonometry tables found on a 2000 year old tablet?

This one.

“Our research reveals that Plimpton 322 describes the shapes of right-angle triangles using a novel kind of trigonometry based on ratios, not angles and circles. It is a fascinating mathematical work that demonstrates undoubted genius….we see a simpler, more accurate trigonometry that has clear advantages over our own.”

“The researchers also provided evidence that discounts the widely-accepted view that the tablet was simply a teacher’s aid for checking students’ solutions of quadratic problems.”

That particular bunch of gobbledy-gook, and total heresay attempt at debunking that this is trigonometry, was promulgated by…wait for it…

Catholic Jesuit Scholars and Oxford All-Souls College scholars. Like, for example, Eleanor Robson “Professor of Ancient Near Eastern History at the Department of History, University College London, chair of the British Institute for the Study of Iraq and a Quondam Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford.

When the new analysis and proof was put out in Science Daily on August 17 last year (2017) barely a week later one of these peoples “authority” mouthpieces – The National Geographic – trotted out another well-worn and equally spurious attempt at denying this proof of early trigonometry skills, deliberately loading the first line with exactly the “message” they wanted to embed in readers consciousness: “but some remain skeptical.

Donald Allen, a mathematics professor at Texas A&M University, was trotted out as one of this “some”, in an emailed statement:

“It is old and accurate, but the interpretation of it as a trig table is conjecture, as it is broken, and the telling part would be contained with the part broken off, and never found,”

That “broken off” supposed debunk being one that has also been repeatedly used by the same Catholic and British apologists and which they are totally FOS about.

I’m telling you about this to highlight the fact that even over a hundred years later (after the find) these a-holes are still trying to keep this hidden and denied.

Why?

“From a modern perspective, a method for constructing such triples is a significant early achievement, known long before the Greek and Indian mathematicians discovered solutions to this problem.”wikipedia

And that points straight at their LIES about non-existent Greeks being the source of this knowledge and points straight out the point being hidden, just how did they have this knowledge, and just how the heck did the Mesopotamians have it during a “history” that we have been told – by the same liars about the Greeks – was little better than savages with some basic art and math skills.

See the problem?

It is, in fact, one of the Catholic debunkers that actually helped put the attention ON another thing they are hiding the same level of ancientness as to use, precession. He points to what they are hiding because it challenges the trigonometry and precession connection, and he uses a number of very specifically chosen arguments coming from certain sources.

Let’s see how.

Enuma Anu Enlil is a series of 68 or 70 cuneiform tablets dealing with Babylonian astrology.

At the present time less than half of the series has been published in modern English editions.

The series was probably compiled in its canonical form during the Kassite period (1595–1157 BCE) but there was certainly some form of prototype Enuma Anu Enlil current in the Old Babylonian period (1950–1595 BCE). It continued in use well into the 1st millennium, the latest datable copy being written in 194 BCE. It is believed that the first 49 tablets were transmitted to India in the 4th or 3rd centuries BCE and that the final tablets dealing with the stars had also arrived in India just before the start of the common era

The final 20 tablets are dedicated to the stars and planets. These tablets in particular use a form of encoding in which the names of the planets are replaced by the names of fixed stars and constellations.

Ah. So, see? Encoding going on even that far back. The story in these tablets then, is CODED knowledge. Quite a consistent pattern of that we have here.

This encoding is documented in an extremely hard to find book published almost 70 years ago out of Rome (why are we not surprised) by P. Anton Deimel S.I.* and P. Gössmann O.E.S.A.**

*S.I. could either mean Societatis Iesu, Latin for Society of Jesus (as in Jesuits)  or Society of the Immaculata
** O.E.S.A. means Hermits of St Augustine

So they are two Catholics.

Their book is titled: Planetarium Babylonicum. As you can see by the link, I tracked it down and put it in the Internet archive. As far as I can tell, no one has translated it into english and published it, which essentially keeps it out of the hands of a huge percentage of humanity.

I don’t think that’s an accident.

Another point to notice is that less than half of the Enuma Anu Enlil tablets themselves have been translated into english. Various plausible-sounding reasons get cited as to why that is but I think it’s simple math. Not enough grant money to make sure they do, and we know who tends to control those kind of purse strings. I suspect that someone doesn’t want these things to be very USABLE to humanity in any kind of hurry.

After all, if it becomes easy for most of humanity to see that the SAME KIND OF CODING gets done wherever this knowledge went, whether India, Europe, or China? They might tend to start wondering why. Even more scary to a dirty-dealing slavemaster, there would definitely be a groundswell of “hey guys, the jig is up” when they notice the continuity of behavior extending right on through to the Vatican and British nobility “new learning” advocates and pretty much right on up to this very day in some very specific areas.

Alright, so here’s what I did. I ocrd the PDF first (because it wasn’t) and then copied various parts into Google translate. The first result is this from the forward. I have no idea how good or not the translation is, but at least it’s a start.

Let’s see what we see.

From the Forward dated July 1950 by Goessman –

The names of the stars are therefore given in transcription in the order of the Semitic alphabet.
A compilation of the modern names of the stars with the Akkaclischen Correspondences at the end make it easier to find what you are looking for.

The individual articles fall into three parts. The first part deals with the names of the stars from philological points of interest.

 • Monthly fixed stars •, • Anu, Enlil, Ea stars …

The second part offers the astronomical information of the relevant: Cestirne. For the planets and zodiacs, the sources were named in chronological order (- 522 = 523 BC), since a closer look at the data of the SA but the expert could not replace the sources…

So far, so good. Relatively easy to understand. The next part’s translation is a bit problematic though.

The third part brings the [Babylonian] Astrological information. Something to worry about beer especially Monel, Sun and Venus. It would be in the • planetarium • a comprehensive In addition to the material available for sale, it is fairly taut Setting in which even the still failing in the sequence miihelos einfiigen to let. The “nonsensical” things that are offered here justify from the cultural-historical point of view of itself, the more so, since our time to start taking such things seriously, and, as we all know, the Occidentals Astrologers at the • Chaldaen • went to school.

You don’t have to try and make sense of it, just notice this fractured part: “as we all know…Chaldean…school.” He’s trying to overwhump everyone a bit with the “as we all know” part, saying that the Enuma Anu Enlil tablets came from them.

What’s interesting is that he acts like that’s the only place this kind of work came from, and I already pointed out that this was actually the influence of the Nesilim ‘priests’ – wrongly named the Hittites – from when they took over Babylon.

Notice that “planetarium” part quoted above. That’s actually a useful feature in this book. Sort of. Well, at least it’s something that we can look at that gives us Babylonian translations for stars etc., right next to their Latin or German names. It’s an index that starts in the last part of the book.

The list of cuneiform characters follows in the usual order. The in brackets attached figures refer to the place where the given name is treated. The conclusion is a list of the modern names of the stars (Latin and German) with the corresponding Sumerian-Akkadian designations.

p. 228 gives you cuneiform to words – Sumerian astronomical names, then on p. 233 of PDF is where you get all the different names for the same thing being talked about,

The Seven ‘Planets’ are given as: Moon, Sun, Jupiter, Venus, Saturn, Mercury and Mars. Some fun example words showing they knew about certain things, like the ecliptic –

  • Samas = Solstice
  • Samsi = the ecliptic.
  • Udu Idim = Planet, or “wandering planet or star” and in Akkadian the word is Bibbu

Udu Idim is particularly interesting, because it shows they knew these things were MOVING.

Page 198 begins a chart as taken from the tablets, tracking eclipses and solstices going all the way back to 762 B.C. An eclipse then, is noted as: Am 15 June – 762 written (translated) as: im Samnnu des Eponyinats des PUR AN SA GAL E

 

An interesting passage about Marduk and Nibiru.

Marduk the star of the marduk. As such, the planet Jupiter is an excellentiam, but Mercury can also be called Mardukstern. Over here s. Schott, Marduk and his star. Marduk Ni-be-ru

Nibiru is the name of the jupiter when he stands in the meridian.

…marduk mul gam (name of Jupiter in month kislimmu)

Jupiter as marduk star is month star of the adaru: Astrol. Pinch in older texts stood in his place mul sanumma = merkur (Marduk/Jupiter)

So, Niberu is NOT a planet, as some readers may know Zacharia Sitchin has repeatedly lied about. It is a manifestation astronomically of what the planet Jupiter is doing.

This forms a good example of how they encoded astronomy in what sounds like some mythological story. The authors quote the following passage from one of the tablets. and tell you what it is actually saying.

Translation first, following by original passage –

Jupiter close to the sun when the marduk star in the month of simanu near the place where the sun is shining, stands, its radiant appearance is ubarragent, its light up as the sun is blazing,the archaic gods will reconcile with abundant rainstorms and persist the floods will be inland, grain and sesame will multiply, one will pay as much for 1 Gur (as usual) for 1 qa, the gods in the heaven will be in their possession, their sanctuaries will see abundance.

These two little parts form good examples of encoded astronomical measurements – p. 195

Ways of the stars of the enlil, anu and ea in the wise, that the sun from the 1st adaru to the 30th aiaru in the anu way, from the 1st simanu to the 30th aiaru in the anu ways, from the 1st simanu to the 30th abu Enlil routes, from the 1st Ululu to 30.

The Nychthemeron was divided into 12 KAS GID by the Babylonians: “On the 6th Nisannu is equinox, 6 KAS GID lasts the day and 6 KAS GID lasts of the light day falls on the 8th degree Cancri, the minimum on the 8th degree Capri….

Couple things to notice especially in that second passage. First, the division of “12” which is a reference to 12 constellations.

Secondly, notice the mention of the 8th degree.

There was a very important change made by Babylonian astronomers, from “10” to “8” degrees for proper vernal point referencing, which a man named Schnabel, in 1926 and 1927 caught in the tablet. He then wrote up that this was proof of knowledge of precession earlier than Hipparchus.

And that leads us to the really important part of this book actually – p. 196. Please keep in mind that this book is almost 25 years after Schnabel and they are still trying to protect Hipparchus as “the first” to know about precession.

The Babylonian origin of our ecliptic with the 12 zodiacal images was recognized by Epping (astronomical from Babylon). The Babylon ecliptic was firm: one only knew the fixed animal crescents, but not the moving zodiacs. The Babylonians thus did not recognize the precession (reference here) although Kidinnu later passed the year points from the 10th degree Arietis [constellation Aries] to the 8th, not because he recognized the precession, but determined by a free choice of a new zero, which would be determined by a fixed star. (SSB II 619) The merit of the discovery of the precession thus remains undisputed for Hipparch (Kugler, beak, etc.)

Schnabel also asserted that Kidinnu discovered precession when distinguishing between sidereal and tropical years; Otto Neugebauer contested this 23 years later (same time as this Planetarium book) in 1950.  Wikipedia tells us that this 1950 “contesting” by Neugebauer is still what is being used, when they said: “current scholarship considers this conclusion to be unfounded.”

This contesting by Neugebauer was:

The Alleged Babylonian Discovery of the Precession of the Equinoxes by Otto Neugebauer; Journal of the American Oriental Society Vol. 70, No. 1 (Jan. – Mar., 1950), pp. 1-8; Published by: American Oriental Society; DOI: 10.2307/595428
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/595428

Otto Neugebauer of Brown University actually is perhaps the best description pointing straight at the most vigorously defended lies about all this, and we’ll be digging into what he said later. But, first we need to take a look at all these terms that are being thrown at us so far.

It is actually Neugebauer that gives a quite interesting (and more easily understandable) description of precession.

The ‘seasons’ can be defined by the variable length of daylight and night. The decrease in the length of the nights hails the approaching summer. Simultaneously another observation can be made. During the winter nights totally different constellations are visible than during summer. Thus it seems as if one could characterize the seasons also by means of the constellations. To realize that is not the case means to recognize ‘precession.’ In about 13,000 years constellations which began as winter constellations move into the summer and vice versa. And in 26,000 years a constellation has traveled once through all four seasons.

Like this gif I made of a segment of a youtube video on precession –

See how the sun is fixed, so to speak? That is a reference to a specific moment during the year. The Spring Equinox – which is being “marked” and called that fancy term of vernal point.

To make this statement a little more precise we may focus our attention on one specific moment during the year, e. g. the spring equinox, when day and night are of exactly equal length. Projecting the sun at this moment onto the background of the stars we may mark this point as the ‘vernal point’.

Just like in the gif above.

If this point remained fixed through the years with respect to the surrounding fixed stars we could define the beginning of spring equally well by means of equinox or by means of the return of the sun to the same star. Again, it is the ‘precession’ of the vernal point which excludes this possibility. The sun requires about 11 minutes less than 365 days to return again to the equinox but it takes it about 9 minutes more than 365 1/4 days to return to the same star. The first period is called the ‘tropical’, the second the ‘sidereal’ year.

So now we now what “tropical” and “sidereal” year are. One is when the sun returns to the equinox, the other is when it returns to the same star.

We need still one more twist in describing ‘precession.’ The projection of all the positions of the sun onto the background of the fixed stars is called ‘ecliptic.’

See the “wobble” of precession here?

Notice the mentions of 10° and 8°, just like Schnabel noted were the changed figures in the Enuma Anu Enlil tablets.

This circle which the sun travels in one year is divided into 360 degrees. Suppose that we begin the count at some arbitrarily chosen point, which might be marked by a star. Call this star ‘Aries 0°.’ Suppose we observe the position of the sun at equinox of a particular year. This vernal point may be found to be 10° distant from Aries 0°. We know already that precession will slowly change the distance of the vernal point from the fixed star which we called Aries 0.

Indeed, the vernal point will be only 9° distant after 72 years, 8° distant after 144 years, etc. This amount of 1/72 degree per year is called the ‘constant of precession.’

A full revolution of precession looks like this –

Notice how the Otto jumps right from what is a fine examplanation to total BS.

Ptolemy, from the comparison of his own observations with the obeervations or his predecessors, especially Hipparchus, concluded that the vernal point moves only 1° in a hundred years, and this remained the accepted value deep into Byzantine astronomy until new Arabic observations corrected (or rather over-compensated) Ptolemy’s value.

This is an intentional “shock” to the readers system and he (or whoever is behind him) has no proof whatsoever of ANY of what he just said there.

Next –

Notice how he specifically mentions the difference between 10° and 8° being proof of the effects of precession in 144 years of observations. That makes throwing in that shilling for Hipparchus paragraph kind of a double whammy on the reader.

Why?

Because that was exactly what Schnabel was talking about. For example, the June 1927 article era when Schnable published his finds is referred to by a Professor Florian Cajori who agreed with Schnabel.

Title: Notes and Queries (Precession of the Equinoxes Discovered by the Babylonians-“Neptune”)
Journal: Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada, Vol. 21, p.215

It has been usual to attribute to Hipparchus the discovery of the precession of the equinoxes; but in a letter to Science Professor Florian Cajori gives reasons for believing that this phenomenon was observed by the Babylonians.

“…The fact that the astronomer Naburiannu (about 508 B.C.) fixed the equinoctial point at 10°, and Kidinnu, about a century and a half later, at 8 °,  the zero point on the ecliptic being interpreted as the same in both cases, shows that Kidinnu had a knowledge of the precession of the equinoxes. A study of tables indicates that from that time on, in the ephemerides following the system of Kidinnu, the zero point on the ecliptic was shifted fr_om, time to time, to enable astronomers to retain the same angular value for the beginning of the autumnal equinoctial years. This again implies a knowledge of precession.

A table (VAT 7821) prepared not later than 186 B.C., and based on the Kidinnu system, gives solar longitudes from day to day, differing by 59’9″, an amount in excess of the true average value of 59’8″9′”.6 for a sidereal year, which was estimated by Kidinnu to be 365d6h13m43s. This excess was corrected in the table by taking on a certain day 56’9″ in place of 59’9″. Thus the computer of the table took the average daily velocity of 59’9″ to yield in the course of one year, not exactly 360°, but an additional 3′.  Dividing 360° 3′ by 59’9″, and allowing liberally for certain possible sources of error, Schnabel concludes that the year considered by the computer could not have exceeded 365d5h3Qm. The modern value for the equinoctial solar year is  365d5h48m4Ss.

Thus the Kidinnu astronomy had two years, the sidereal and the equinoctial. Kidinnu deserves to be. ranked among the greatest astronomers of ancient times.”

I think he or maybe it was Otto, also mentions that this all has to do with the Planet Venus tablet which is part of the Enuma Anu Enlil tablets. It is #63. Image of the tablet is here.

This is a chart someone put together of that copied ancient data in 7th century B.C.

“According to the Venus Tablet, there are only four possible dates for the sack of Babylon. This astronomical tablet (Enuma Anu Enlil 63), copied in 7th century BCE, describes the rising and setting of Venus during the reign of Ammisaduqa (a descendant of Hammurabi):

Pay close attention to this part of this person’s paper

Although the interpretation of this astronomical tablet is difficult, because many data appear to have been poorly copied, the fall of Babylon can be dated to the period 1500-1700 only according to four possibilities:

The date 1595 is chosen mainly as it is consistent with the chronology accepted by most historians to the late 20th century, hence the name of “Middle chronology”. However, other lunar eclipses are used for dating the fall of Babylon. A tablet of astronomical omens (Enuma Anu Enlil tablet #20) mentions a lunar eclipse, dated 14 Siwanu, at the end of the reign of Shulgi (14/III/48) and another (Enuma Anu Enlil 21) mentions a lunar eclipse, dated 14 Addaru, at the end of the Ur III dynasty ending with the reign of Ibbi-Sin (14/XII/24).

These two lunar eclipses are separated by 42 years of reign (= 9 years of Amar-Sin + 9 years of !u-Sîn + 24 years of Ibbi-Sin). Moreover, in a tablet of Mari, a scribe mentions a [total] lunar eclipse during the eponymy of Asqudum6 (= year 12/13 of Hammurabi).

Over the period 2200-1850 there are only three pairs of eclipses, spaced by 42 years, matching the description of astronomical omens…

Notice how he refuses to choose one of the two earlier ones that make MUCH more sense in relation to Nesilim (Hittite) records that do not agree with the Bible – either Catholic or Jewish. We’ll get into that more later, but notice that he chooses the ones that do agree with the bible better, and says: Despite the excellent agreement among all these astronomical data, the date of 1499 is considered too low compared to Kassite and Hittite chronologies.

If we look at the other chart he included of estimated reigns of Nesilim (Hittite) Kings, notice anything?

He leaves out that as compared to his prior eclipse chart, there is another chronology that actually puts the Nesilim/Hittites arriving prior to the two eclipses marking the fall of Babylon at 1977 B.C. and 1912 B.C.

The powers that be don’t like that timeline because it proves all the biblical and greek crap is wrong. I’d like to pose a question here. If the Catholics, Jews, and “Kings” and nobility of Europe are from this same group of people – the Nesilim – do we really think they didn’t fung up the dating scheme in places their group was BEFORE?

Think about it.

These people lie, lie, and lie some more at ALL points in their history to other people in their own group and those controlled or subservient to their group.

The one constant is that they lie about when, from where, and with what knowledge they came to “create” society, so do we think they didn’t do that in ancient times when they were mucking about in Turkey, Russia/China, or Mesopotamia/Egypt?

Sounds a little thin to try and argue they didn’t, if you ask me.

Scholars are now having to at least give a nod to that a change took place when the Nesilim took over Babylon in or around 1530 B.C, saying things like: “…astronomical traditions were greatly strengthened. Catalogues of heliacal risings of the Moon and stars appear. Tablets left from the era between 1500 and 1250 BC speak of methords for calculating the position and appearance of Venus…” that it repeats its pattern approx. every 8 years. The tablets referred to are a part of Enuma Anu Enlil, with one in particular called the Venus tablet.

 

Interestingly enough, that particular Canadian Royal Society article also describes the Enuma Anu Enlil tablets as: “a set of astrological compilations…that may have been taken from sources as much as a thousand years earlier.

Well, no shit. The “Venus tablet” is supposedly from 700 B.C. and this author just said that the Nesilim (hittites) are who spurred this sudden increase in astronomical skill in calculations in Babylon eight hundred years earlier in 1530 B.C.

Unfortunately, as usual, this unwillingness to connect-the-dots that way by the author is a portent it then immediately devolves into the whole “approved” of “progression” until Hipparchus time.

Now, why did they divide this figuring of dates into a basis of around 2000 years? This was supposedly based on viewable vernal point constellations, named as 12 constellations, each 30 degrees long adding up to a full 360 degree circle lasting the total length of 25,772 years of precession –

But, here we have another problem.

Changing the time-measurement parameters is another way that they skew and hopelessly confuse the timeline. From astro.com

At astronomy’s high point in antiquity during the hellenistic age from around 200 BC – 200 AD, the vernal equinox in the northern hemisphere was situated on the border between the fixed star constellations of Aries and Pisces. Astrologers at the time divided the circle of the ecliptic into twelve equal segments of 30° using this zero-point as a frame of reference. These segments were given the same names as the fixed star constellations lying behind them. It is important to distinguish these 30° degree segments of the ecliptic (or signs of the zodiac) from the background of fixed star constellations carrying the same name, which are both vaguely defined and of irregular size.

Wikipedia, not exactly always a reliable source, pins this on the Babylonians at supposedly 539 B.C. –

The second limitation was that the astronomical knowledge presupposed and accompanying early Babylonian astrology was, though essentially of an empirical character, limited and flawed. The theory of the ecliptic as representing the course of the Sun through the year, divided among twelve constellations with a measurement of 30° to each division, is of Babylonian origin, as has now been definitely proved; but it does not appear to have been perfected until after the fall of the Babylonian empire in 539 BC.

Which means they are talking about the Enuma Anu Enlil Venus tablet (#63).

Further complicating the issue, the obsessive changers altered even what the constellations the ancients were observing were, to being what we NOW use. A huge flaw, and yet another way to hide the heck was really going on “back in the day”, so to speak.

The third limitation was that there is little evidence that the signs of the zodiac that we now recognise, were used in Babylonian astronomy prior to 700 BC.

So, notice this. This particular alteration of the equal 30 degrees for each of 12 constellations (length of time given to add up to precession period) – whenever it was actually done – is skewed to the benefit of one group and one group only – the Catholics and British nobility. It was done to make the so-called Birth of Christ relate to the new “Age” of Pisces.

As we got close to the leaving of that Age(and all that symbolizes to such superstition-wielding types) what would you expect to see?

Yep.

They changed things AGAIN.

Wikipedia –

In 1928, at the Conference of the International Astronomical Union (IAU) in Leiden, the Netherlands, the edges of the 88 official constellations became defined in astronomical terms. The edge established between Pisces and Aquarius locates the beginning of the Aquarian Age around the year 2600.

So look at that….they prolonged, artificially, their loss of ‘power’ by the end of ‘their’ age by more than 500 years!

What this does is skew ALL the dating, both with the first arbitrary change and even worse with the second.

Ok, but…guess what?

Historians are still using the whole equal time per constellation idea to DATE historical events.

If we calculate it exactly and start from a fixed point, i.e. the conjunction of the vernal equinox with the first point of the constellation Aries.

Astrology in Mesopotamian Culture, an essay by A. E. Thierens

Notice that this same man uses the 30 degree division rounding to 2160 for some reason, when he comes up with this as the astrological “ages”:

Twins: 6534-4383 B.C.
Bull: 4383-2232 B.C.
Ram: 2232-81 B.C.

I say that CANNOT be accurate because that assumes that all the dating previously was based on a this 30 degree business that had not been DONE yet.

Making things worse, if one was to put the accurate length between the constellations, like what was done in 1928 because some are larger some are smaller, then that drastically changes the time period that ancient people were referring their own selves to “twins” time “Bull” time, etc.

So, for example, the Nesilim. (hittites).

They specifically used the symbology of the bulls to represent their time period. By this means dating, that would put them as being in that 4383-2232 B.C. time period, well over 1 to 2 thousand years earlier than historians want to acknowledge they were, largely because of all this bullshit about using the bibles (Christian and Jewish) as some kind of accurate guideline for dating. This, despite the fact they can’t even get the names of people like the Nesilim right, let alone events.

Besides all that, my point is that even when still using his 30 degree “age” (constellation dominant at vernal point) marker, it still comes up with that they have the time period deliberately wrong for when the Nesilim were.

I think that’s pretty interesting.

On that note, remember how we were talking about this that Otto and Schnabel were arguing about? I am referring to Otto’s mentions of 10° and 8°, just like Schnabel noted were the changed figures in the Enuma Anu Enlil tablets.

This circle which the sun travels in one year is divided into 360 degrees. Suppose that we begin the count at some arbitrarily chosen point, which might be marked by a star. Call this star ‘Aries 0°.’ Suppose we observe the position of the sun at equinox of a particular year. This vernal point may be found to be 10° distant from Aries 0°. We know already that precession will slowly change the distance of the vernal point from the fixed star which we called Aries 0.

Indeed, the vernal point will be only 9° distant after 72 years, 8° distant after 144 years, etc. This amount of 1/72 degree per year is called the ‘constant of precession.’

Because he is perhaps the best description pointing straight at the most vigorously defended lies about all this? I’d like to come back to Otto’s full “debunking” now and go a bit deeper into it.

One thing that you should know about Otto is that he was very, very pessimistic. A glass half empty kind of guy. One biographer referred to him as perceiving that: the human world as consisting largely of fools, knaves, and dupes, and when he was overwhelmed by this perception he took refuge in his ancient studies.

What I find fascinating about that is that for someone supposedly somewhat anti-Catholic and a “Protestant” he sure spends a lot of time defending both Jewish and Christian biblical accounts of things, not to mention he’s totally enamored in ye ole declamatio Greek supposed accounts of history – like Pliny, Ptolemy, Hipparchus etc.

So considering other people as dupes when he falls for all that rot (and so vigorously defends it with knavish and spurious arguments) is a little…hypocritical. To put it mildly. He’s pointing fingers everywhere but where he really should – on the lying biblical and Greek-based historians. Who were hired by popes and kings/nobles, let’s not forget, to write such things in the first place.

Maybe bearing more than a little similarity to what Otto was asked to do here (as I strongly suspect to be the case).

Alright, so let’s have a look at his debunking attempts now. The article we’re looking at is:

The Alleged Babylonian Discovery of the Precession of the Equinoxes by Otto Neugebauer; Journal of the American Oriental Society Vol. 70, No. 1 (Jan. – Mar., 1950), pp. 1-8; Published by: American Oriental Society; DOI: 10.2307/595428
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/595428

His article is the same year as the Jesuit star chart book we talked about earlier.

He starts out expressing his concern about new material being used to “destroy generally accepted theories.” Pretty descriptive, if you ask me, and pointed right at the weakness. Accepted, not whether they should be or not, ya ken? Just that they are.  (ken is Scottish slang for “understand”, by the way)

It is important to understand that this man’s entire paper is geared around attempting to squelch a revelation from almost 30 years earlier, because despite many and varied attempts at suppressing it and making fun of it THEN, it didn’t work. In his own words:

…in the case of the more and more frequently quoted statement that the Babylonian astronomer Kidinnu was the discoverer of the precession of the equinoxes and that this event can be dated in 370 B.C., thus antedating Hipparchus by about two and one-half centuries.

Otto employs a lot of interesting tactics in this article – rhetoric, all – but notice this one: “It may seem as if we were dealing here with one of those questions of priority which are of very little significance.

So, now after marginalizing the whole thing and justifying his being brought to the “attack” grist-mill here, obviously on behalf of the Catholic and Brit slavemasters, he then says: “Actually the problem has wider implications. It is closely related to the problem of the date of origin of Babylonian mathematical astronomy, which exercised a deep influence on Greek astronomy and its continuation in the Middle ages.

See, that’s when all this Greek crap was mostly invented, so if their story-line gets exposed and debunked with REAL dates and REAL history, that tends to knock their credibility all to hell and gone plus, even worse, opens the door to what the hell really happened and why lie about it?

See, I don’t think it’s a matter of that they were just making mistakes based on bad data. Well, some people were, but that’s not who I’m talking about. I think that there were specific people who KNEW what the true history was and deliberately set out to obscure it.

Remember what he said. His big concern was that Schnabel and others work would: “destroy generally accepted theories.” Focus on another word now – theories. Why would destroying a theory be a problem? It wouldn’t, if this was a normal situation with normal non-lying people. But when you are a con-artist, if people see through your “theory” they are going to go after the facts, and there are always inconvenient facts that can kill a con-artists game.

And this particular con game was run by Popes, Priests, Kings, and nobility. The so-called “elite” of the world.

After a bunch of self-serving attempts to make it look like he wasn’t doing this article in service of that and speaking generally every which direction, he finally gets around to naming who he is trying to debunk “the above-mentioned theory which was developed by Schnable in 1923 and 1927”  and what is the real purpose of the article:to demonstrate that none of the arguments on which it was based can be upheld.

Which he totally fails to do, by the way. When you remove all the tactics and posturing the man has bupkus.

So, now all that was followed by a statement that he is doing this for no reason other than his honest wonderfulness (puhlease) but look at this part – “I see no special merit in restoring Hipparchus the priority which he held before Schnabel’s publications; nor do I pretend to know now more about the history of precession than one knew 50 years ago.

Since I believe he is totally lying about that, I would even go so far as to say that simply by reversing his lie, we could understand that “restoring Hipparchus to prominence” is the purpose of the article.

We already covered his explanation of precession etc., now we’ll have a look at his description of what these people (like him) have nicknamed System A and System B regarding moon (lunar) movements tracked by Babylonians. This is important in relation to what I will later show you that was found in the Nesilim (Hittite) tablets and monuments, which predate these guys – the Babylonians Otto is talking about – by thousands of years.

Otto describes the two systems in as complex way as possible. This, after saying he was trying to make it simple for the average reader. He does this when he is on a point that he actually doesn’t want the reader to understand, but just accept what he says because “he’s an authority so he must know what he’s talking about”.

Hence the difference, or rather the importance of the vast difference between accept and understand. One is propaganda, the other is not.

Kugler recognized in his Babylonische Mondrechnung (1900) that two different methods existed in Seleucid Mesopotamia for the prediction of the lunar movement. He also realized that one of these systems showed definite improvements over the other and that the more highly developed (and consequently later) system was utilized by Hipparchus.

Loaded statement, notice how it acts like Hipparchus is real as a fact or a given. It’s not.

In a text from this second system, henceforth called ‘ System B,’ he found in the colophon the name of Kidinnu, while Weidner discovered the name of Nabu·rimannu in a text of the more primitive system (‘ A ‘). Since both names occur also in classical sources (e. g. Strabo and Pliny) it has become customary to consider Nabu-rimannu and Kidinnu the inventors of the lunar theories A and B respectively.

Now there’s something VERY interesting. The tablets had not been discovered yet when the Catholics declamatioed Strabo and Pliny – which I have already proven never existed and are totally spurious – so how did they know these names?

We’re supposed to believe that its because Strabo and Pliny “had the tablets” but that is total horseshit. There is no proof whatsoever of that.

What’s the other option for how these names were known?

The Catholics, who used the Nesilim double-headed eagle symbol came from there, WERE those people who were hiding astronomical knowledge and history in mythological stories, (just like they did with the Bible) so of course they knew. They had “passed the torch” on it all the way down the line.

No Greeks needed.

Only in passing it might be said that the basis for this assumption is exceedingly slim. The names occur only in three tablets of the latest period, the reading and translation of the colophons is full of difficulties, the classical sources say nothing about the authorship of these men nor is their relation known to the scribal families to which the owners and scribes of the tablets of the Uruk archive belong. Still less is known about the text from Babylon and no material is available from any other site in spite of many statements to the contrary in the literature.

See how that throws you? He did that on purpose. He used some TRUTH on you as a weapon to knock you off balance for what comes next. First he agrees with declamatio people and texts, now he proves they are questionable.

Well, yea, no shit Sherlock.

Don’t make the mistake of thinking that he actually sees through the declamatio game. Or maybe I should say, wants YOU to see through it. He doesn’t.

He now describes System A and B –

For our specific problem one fact stablished by Kugler is of great importance. Both systems contain schemes for the variable length of daylight depending upon the position of the sun in the ecliptic. In these schemes equinox corresponds in System A to the solar position Aries 10°, in System B to Aries 8°. This difference in the position of the vernal point plays a central role in the discussion about the Babylonian discovery of the precession.

Right. Because the recognition of that change corresponded exactly to the precessional correction and ONLY the precessional correction. That’s what Otto is trying to get around with this article, because it kills the Hipparchus theory that he “discovered” it deader than a doornail.

He describes that Schnable, in his book Berossos said that Kidinnu founded System B and discovered precession about 315. B.C. He describes that Kugler, who had considered this idea in 1900, decided that wasn’t the case and attacked Schnable in 1924. Schnable then answered in an often-quoted article from 1927, where he described Kidinnu’s discovery of precession (now in 379 BC) was “endgultig festgestellt” which means “finally determined” or as we say today, end of discussion.

Part of what’s funny about this is that they’re all arguing in the wrong time period. This system B was known well before 315 B.C. so that’s one reason to keep the argument in that 315 B.C. time period and a very, very tricky tactic. “Attack” Schnabel’s argument, draw attention, get everyone trying to prove it in THAT time period and missing the forest for the trees and…

Voila!

REAL history obscured.

Check out all the double-speak going on here –

At this point the discussion has rested ever since, obviously because nobody who was sufficiently familiar with the methods of Babylonian astronomy investigated carefully Schnabel’s arguments. In my own study of System B, and eapecially of the theory of eclipses, I reached the result ten years ago that Schnabel was hopelessly wrong, and I stated this on several occasions, but only in passing, because the full discussion my arguments would have required a detailed explanation of rather complicated sections of the theory of System B. In the meantime, however, several new facts have come to light and make it possible to disprove Schnabel’s theory directly without being forced to be familiar with the details of the Babylonian lunar theory.

He’s full of shit – especially visible in that bolded part. What he has to offer can NOT be properly evaluated WITHOUT being familiar with these. In fact, being familiar with these is what will show up how false his debunking is!

 

After dropping that proverbial “bomb”, he switches to summarizing Schnabel’s arguments, but first let’s review what this System A and B is again that he thinks we don’t have to be familiar with –

For our specific problem one fact stablished by Kugler is of great importance. Both systems contain schemes for the variable length of daylight depending upon the position of the sun in the ecliptic. In these schemes equinox corresponds in System A to the solar position Aries 10°, in System B to Aries 8°. This difference in the position of the vernal point plays a central role in the discussion about the Babylonian discovery of the precession.

That is EVERYTHING.

Now that you have a basic understanding of precession, I’m sure you see why he doesn’t want people to “be forced to be familiar with” the fact that System B shows an understanding of precession – minor detail, sarcastically speaking – and he’d rather that people take some other crappy “proof” he (and whoever) dreamed up instead.

Schnabel’s arguments as summed up by Otto –

A. The shift from Aries 10 to Aries 8 for the vernal point in System A and System B respectively can be explained as the correction for precession between Naburianu and Kidinnu.
B. The fall equinoxes were accurately observed, thus guaranteeing the correct value for the tropical year.
C. The planetary entries into zodiacal signs, listed in observational records, show the influence of precession.
D. The periods of two columns of the lunar
theory (called H and J) should be equal, but actually deviate by a small amount which corresponds to precession.
E. A tablet in Berlin shows a sudden correction which can be explained as a correction for precession.
F. Ptolemy says only that ‘also Hipparchus’ was concerned with precession, but not that he was the discoverer.
G. Kidinnu being a Babylonian, he could not have deviated from his predecessors without serious reasons, because the conservatism of the Babylonians is notorious.

I’m sure that you can see that right away, “F” and “G” of Schnabel’s arguments are perfect for the declamatio slavemasters, since they are who invented half the crap that Schnabel is unknowingly using as valid. You gotta appreciate the irony there.

Otto’s next tactic is to put the arguments in that order, but he attacks them in reverse order. He starts with…wait for it…the two I just mentioned as his attack points. He went RIGHT FOR those, and it’s so important to their tactic to unstabilize the reader by arguing authoritatively about the two declamatio-based arguments, as if it actually means diddly-squat as to REAL history.

He’s quite testy about it too, which is funny since he’s the one who pretended to attack the veracity of Ptolemy etc. on these very points, but now he defends that point. (I told you he wasn’t serious about the truth, he was only using it as a tactic).

In attacking point G, he says he has only quoted it (or added it) “as an example of the intrinsically absurd concept that alleged national characteristics can explain individual steps in the development of scientific theories (or, for that matter, of anything else).

What the ever-living ….

LOT wrong with that supposed “counter” argument, starting with the not-so veiled attempt at calling Schnabel a Nazi and a communist.

We can just completely dismiss this one as Otto giving himself the opportunity to DO exactly that, engage in a little Jesuit sub-understanding name calling.

He then takes up F and says that “Hipparchus reached the conclusion that all fixed stars participate in a common motion like a very slowly moving planet.

Did he now…

That’s not a valid argument either. So much for that one. But see that he’s arguing FOR the same area, declamatios, that he pretended he was skeptical of earlier? Yep. There he goes…

But this is is also very interesting, for another reason. Otto is actually (apparently without noticing) actually supporting that Hipparchus did not discover, name or USE precession, when he notes that: “Ptolemy CONSIDERS Hipparchus as the first astronomer who consciously tried to bring order into the contradictory results of observations about the length of the year.

Note that word consciously. That’s literally going to be the ridiculously weak basis of his entire argument against an earlier knowledge of precession.

He then follows all this with a clearly prepared gobbledygook statement – always a bad sign – that says: “against this unbiased interpretation of the whole material offered in the Almagest one cannot consider a simple connecting kai (sp?) as a statement of intended chronological significance for the discovery of precession.

He says that Schnabel’s argument “E” WOULD have required, some years ago, a lengthy astronomical discussion, but contrast that with his opening statement: “nor do I pretend to know now more about the history of precession than one knew 50 years ago.

So, which is it, parenthetically speaking, “You know more now or you don’t, Otto?”

Otto tells us that Schnabel had also found a text in the Berlin collection called VAT 7821 –

“…in the middle of which the day-by-day positions of the sun are changed from the expected value 3° 27’15” to 3°24’15”. By means of an argument which I was never able to understand, he derived from this ‘attested empirical correction’ a value for the length of the year which proved the consideration of precession.”

It does actually, but notice the total dismissal of it, he doesn’t even address the significance of this itself. Thus from a man who apparently wants us to take the total heresay of a declamatio Greek author (Ptolemy) over this clear proof of knowledge of corrections NEEDED and NOTED?

That’s pretty fricking hilarious to me.

Goes to show you what a little actual knowledge and actual understanding can do for you, you can see right through this kind of crap.

How did this man (and others like him) sleep at night knowing they are pushing such wool over others eyes while complaing, in Otto’s case, about people being dupes! After HE is part of duping them!.

Sheesh.

So after not addressing the point at all really, just passing it off as can’t be understood, then he goes on and on arguing about the difference between the numbers 7 and 4  on “tablets” as a generalization that no one but him understands, and then hairsplitting re what if it’s 27 versus 24. NONE of which proves a damn thing. The he goes on about that HE found the missing half of the tablet? Yea right. Sure he did.

But wait, thought he wasn’t concerned about it at all and was all dismissive that it couldn’t be understood, in the first place.

Oops.

This is where the tactic of taking all these circuitous routes and lame counter-arguments first comes to fruition. The reader’s mind, hopefully, is already LEANED towards “it isn’t true” BEFORE he actually takes up the argument that kills all of HIS arguments.

Imagine that.

And what counter-argument is that up against?

Schnabel’s argument D.

It is important, when you read this, to understand that he is leaving out that the whole point of System B actually, is that it shows precession. (the 8 and 10 degree noted change on the tablet)

9. Argument D is the only one which implies some mathematical concepts. Schnabel has correctly show that the mean period of column J in System B of the lunar theory is 12;22,8 months, whereas the column of the differences of J, called H, has a slightly different period. Schnabel argued that there was no reason why column J should be a sequence of second order unless H has an independent astronomical significance. Thus he took the difference between the periods seriously and….[my note: prepare for some serious bullshit here.] …combined it with another ’empirical correction’ (actually again a simple scribal error) in order to find for the period of H the tropical year while be correctly understood tbat the period of J should correspond to the anomaliatic year, which was, however, not distinguished by the ancients from the sidereal year.

Bold part – oh yes it was, by the Nesilim, who taught the Babylonians.

As to the rest?

Gobbledygook – he does not know any of that to be a fact, he’s throwing the reader a pile of horsehit and hoping it will stick since it SOUNDS so “impressive” and technical. To overwhump readers into not observing the FACT that the tablet does show a change that does have astronomical significance (and is one the slavemasters didn’t control the writing of – key point). To accomplish the overwhumping, he is also completely changing what he promised he was going to do in the beginning, make it not too technical and easier for readers.

Ah!

But then…

He screws up and reveals the problem – see if you can catch it yourself.

“First of all, it would be a rather absurd procedure to take the slow·moving effect of precession into account by introducing.a rapidly oscillating function of only slightly different period.”

Did you catch it?

Then he goes into a bunch of math crap that doesn’t prove anything other than he’s actually documenting that they DID factor it that minutely.

This part: “introducing.a rapidly oscillating function of only slightly different period.” means they were factoring the 1/72 figure into play. See how he’s trying to whomp you with actually a very revealing argument lending credibility TO what Schnabel said.

So much for that then.

That’s what happens when they start trying to sell a lie, they make mistakes that even they don’t catch. Sort of like the murderer always leaving a clue principle.

After contradicting that he was making this “simple” for readers and boring everyone to sleep with his so-called mathematical calculations that no one understands, he finished with this:

“It can be shown furthermore that the value 12;22,8 months, which Schnabel discovered, lies at the basis of the theory in both System A and B, thus establishing a direct relationship between the two theories which would be hard to explain if one system admitted precession while the other did not.”

IS that so.

No, the simplicity of the matter is obvious to me here. One class of people had the right data and one didn’t. Sounds like them alright. (the slavemasters).

Otto attacks Schnabel’s arguments B and C in an interesting way. He decides that they are both based on the assumption that these are “observation texts” as in records of observation. Not that they are or not, he just decides what Schnabel was thinking. It would have maybe been ok if he had been right, but he wasn’t. He just hopes you don’t know that.

Then, he says that recently he and someone named Sachs have decided that concerning this VAT 7821 tablet….and get this…ALL OF THE ENTRIES IN THESE TEXTS ARE COMPUTED AND NOT OBSERVED.

and…”This holds especially for the solstices and equinoxes and for the entry of planets into zodiacal signs, referred to by Schnabol. Hence these texts are completely eliminated from any discussion of Babylonian accuracy of observation of these (and many other) phenomena.

Oh, so that’s that then, is it?

No it isn’t, not by a long shot. He doesn’t know that, but guess what he’s revealing there. Know why they are using the computing argument? Because that is exactly what some of their declamatio authors did when coming up with “personal” details and observations of their declamatio Greek fictions like Hipparchus, Ptolemy etc. Remember how they would add these details of “mentioned” an eclipse of blah blah blah? Yea.

Oh, but wait…right after all that, then he tries to pass it off as “offhand” that he wants to “mention a few additional details.”

Which are –

“Since Epping and Kugler succeeded in deciphering the lunar and planetary computations of the Seleucid period, it has become clear to all who seriously studied these texts that they were based on an exceedingly small number of observations, the majority of which consisted in the establishment of relations between periods.”

After digging himself in deeper with that one he then says:

“It seems to me one of the most admirable features of ancient astronomy that all efforts were concentrated upon reducing to a minimum the influence of the innacuracy of individual observations with crude instruments…”

Boy, is that one gonna come back and bite him in the butt when you see what I found – but that’s later.

Anyway, for someone that is supposedly done addressing and debunking Schnabel’s arguments, he goes on and on for almost half the article about other useless crap that doesn’t prove anything. He really has a boner for wanting to prove that these tablets were not based on observations but were “just” computations.

He even goes off into using declamatio greek texts and then again tries to use the system A and B deviation argument as if that was proof that they didn’t know precession when using System B – because others used System A and obviously didn’t know precession. You know, at the same time-like.

Further proving out my point for me of that was exactly the case, oddly enough.

It’s obvious that System A people didn’t know what System B people did and System B people also knew System A, and probably used it or taught it just to throw off those “unwashed” and “unworthy of knowledge” people. If you’ve read my Forging History article, you know how often they’ve done exactly that.

After pages and pages of a supposed offhand mention of “a few additional details.” now comes the big whammy after most readers are a bit cross-eyed about the whole thing.

“The most one could possibly admit would be that precession produced the necessity for a correction in the position of the vernal point from 10° to 8°. But even if this were the case (I personally doubt it), we could only say that the correction was made without realizing that no single correction could solve the problem.”

See how he is forced to admin it IS a change to factor precession? But the poor dears didn’t REALIZE that’s what they were doing, you see, per Otto.

Whatever Otto.

He tries to float that particular boat again in point 12 –

“…there is no basis visible anywhere in the cuneiform texts of the Seleucid period to support the assumption of a conscious recognition of precession.”

Oh sure. It’s ye ole UNCONSCIOUS recognition of precession, is it? Gonna need Kermit for that one.

Man, this guy just cannot even see how ridiculous he looks, he’s so set on sellin’ the snake oil of Greek declamatio crap. Note the part: of the Saleucid period. Ah, but the Nesilim period does, and that’s thousands of years earlier! We just won’t bother to mention that minor detail.

I told you he would reveal why, and what’s the real point of all the debunking that goes on around these facts, and here it is:

Similarly I see no way to determine exactly the date of origin of the methods of mathematical astronomy.

He hopes…(cue dark giggle)

But he’s wrong. There is a way.

Notice also that he just killed the Hipparchus claim-to-fame though as well. File that under large Oopsies.

Then he accuses Greeks and Babylonians as “doctoring” numbers for the sake of easier computation. Yet another way to pretend they ALL didn’t know what they were doing and when it comes to “doctoring” anything? That doesn’t fly to well coming from supporters of people that doctor just abouy everything they’ve every come across or done – aka the Catholic and British slavemasters.

Doctoring? Did he actually say Doctoring?

Yea, and then he stats gloating about the effects of doctoring –

“…depriving us of any hope of reconstructing the original data accurately.”

Not so, and you gotta appreciate the irony of a declamatio lover talking about “doctoring”, but man is he arrogant about that – that people have no hope of reconstructing history accurately. He’s even more arrogant here –

“At present it is open to anyone to guess whether it is significant or purely accidental that we have no texts from the time before 300 b.c. in contrast to the very complete coverage for the next two and one-half centuries.”

Yea?

Except for Plimpton 322, that is.

I love this – he finishes with a resounding thunderclap of support for Hipparchus.

Also the early history of the theory of precession is far from well known. There is, of course, no room for doubt of the authenticity of the facts concerning Hipparchus as revealed by the Almagest.

Oh, of course

Not.

And then off he goes immediately trying to explain away Ptolemy’s lack of history, which was previously cited as THE history by going off into more declamatio idiots that also don’t prove a damn thing.

Let’s line these few up so you can really see it.

Paired one –

  • I see no way to determine exactly the date of origin of the methods of mathematical astronomy.
  • There is, of course, no room for doubt of the authenticity of the facts concerning Hipparchus as revealed by the Almagest.

Paired two –

  • Ptolemy CONSIDERS Hipparchus as the first astronomer who consciously tried to bring order into the contradictory results of observations about the length of the year.
  • Hipparchus reached the conclusion that all fixed stars participate in a common motion like a very slowly moving planet.
  • “against this unbiased interpretation of the whole material offered in the Almagest one cannot consider a simple connecting kai (sp?) as a statement of intended chronological significance for the discovery of precession.”

Paired three –

  • the more highly developed (and consequently later) system was utilized by Hipparchus.
  • Ptolemy CONSIDERS Hipparchus as the first astronomer who consciously tried to bring order into the contradictory results of observations about the length of the year.
  • Only in passing…the classical sources say nothing about the authorship of these men…
  • I see no way to determine exactly the date of origin of the methods of mathematical astronomy.

And yet remember what he said –

“I see no special merit in restoring Hipparchus the priority which he held before Schnabel’s publications.”

Look at all that attention on presenting Hipparchus as “right” and “real”. So much for that he didn’t “see a special merit” in doing so, I would say.

And, if Hipparchus was so smart and did exist, since they were still using cuneiform in the first century A.D., where the frack are ANY tablets mentioning Hipparchus? Nowhere. That’s where. Although, now that I’ve pointed that out, I wouldn’t put it past these guys to fabricate one and “discover” it somewhere.

Which reminds me – ever heard of a seven-foot statue known as the Farnese Atlas? It’s a sky globe depicting the nighttime sky, BUT it only first appeared in…you should know what the answer is by now…yep. Ye ole same time as everything else – the late 1400’s and early 1500’s. Instead of saying: Let there be light! to describe this time period?

They should have said –

Let there be Lies!

Because humanity sure was getting zapped all to hell and gone with lie after lie after lie…ending up looking kind of like this –


image from here

The so-called Farnese Atlas is another of those lies.

If you look at wikipedia about it, the opening line right away gives you false information: “The Farnese Atlas is a 2nd-century Roman marble copy of a Hellenistic sculpture of Atlas kneeling with the celestial spheres…

Ah, it’s 2nd century? As in MADE in the second century? No. Note the word COPY in there: “Roman marble copy of

Boy, is this a devious one. It wasn’t made by “the Romans”. Also note the rest of the sentence: “…the oldest extant statue of the Titan of Greek mythology, who is represented in earlier vase-painting.

Ah. So someone supposedly finds a vase somewhere, then fashions a statue IN THE 1400’s or so that is based on a supposed vase that is conveniently discovered accidentally-on-purpose during the same time as all the declamatio stories coming out in the 1400 and 1500’s and then voila!

Now it’s proof of Hipparchus!

This story was put in a scientific magazine, for goshsakes, as recently as 2005!

The long lost star catalog of Hipparchus has been under our noses – or, more accurately, slightly above them – for more than 1,800 years.

Sheesh.

The guy can’t even get his story line straight. The statue wasn’t known to pretty much anyone in the early 1500”s and that is not “1800 years” ago. Nor was that celestial globe unknown, particularly to its maker. They were obviously commissioned to do exactly that.

Remember now, these so-called advanced Greeks were still writing in cuneiform on tablets as late as 100 A.D., almost 200 years after Hipparchus supposedly lived. Does that globe look like cuneiform to you, or does it look strangely the same imagery and style that was coming out in declamatio books in the 1400’s and 1500’s?

Extra long toes and all.

Sitting atop the broad shoulders of a seven-foot statue known as the Farnese Atlas is a sky globe depicting the nighttime sky. Scientists have been able to match the constellations shown on the globe with descriptions from Hipparchus’s only surviving work, Commentaries, and have concluded that this is a marble copy of his star catalog.

First of all –

Scientists, my ass. Don’t forget, they could back-calculate constellations and stars by then (the 1400’s and 1500’s).

Second –

Hipparchus doesn’t HAVE ANY “surviving works.” That Commentaries thing is another declamatio fabrication of a supposed discussion of the poem Aratus, which as usual, are “lost” to us as to any kind of original. You can also tell by this ridiculous statement of proof of its existence by wikipedia: “The two poems were very popular both in the Greek and Roman world as is proved by the number of commentaries and Latin translations

Oh, by “volume of” declamatio works – that’s the proof? Whatever.

But what’s the real punchline of this 2005 “discovery”? Something you now know quite a bit about. Check it out –

Perhaps his most important observation, and the one that provided the key to determining the Atlas held his catalog, was precession.

 

Remember, there was no proof that Hipparchus discovered precession, not even in their declamatio creation “by Ptolemy” called the Almagest. But, what we do know is that certain Roman Catholic priests and Popes knew about it and that is why it is on this 1400’s created “star cataloge” globe ridiculous-looking statue.

Check the image description by the author: “There it is! The star catalog of Hipparchus.”

Credit: Gerry Picus, courtesy Griffith Observatory

Uh no. There it ISN’T.

I mean, really. Look at that thing. It practically screams commissioned statue maker from the 1400’s. And yet we are given this crap as science?

That is NOT science.

Wikipedia tells us that:

In 2005, at a meeting of the American Astronomical Society in San Diego, California, Dr. Bradley E. Schaefer, a professor of physics at Louisiana State University, presented a widely reported analysis concluding that the text of Hipparchus’ long lost star catalog may have been the inspiration for the representation of the constellations on the globe, thereby reviving and expanding an earlier proposal by Georg Thiele (1898).

See that name Georg Thiele? That just happens to be one of Otto Neugebauer’s favorite people to quote, so there’s a big red flag right there. He’s also a favorite source for our other Catholic apologist debunker – Gary Thompson.

Georg Thiele (1866-1917) was a Catholic German Professor of Classical Philology (at the universities of Marburg and Griefswald). His book about this statue was titled: Antike Himmelsbild which means antique something (Google can’t translate the second word).

Thompson says that:

Thiele then set out a detailed argument that the constellations depicted on the globe followed the astronomy of Hipparchus (and are based on his fixed-star register). Georg Thiele concluded that the descriptions of the constellations given by Aratus (in his poem Phainomena) were not based on an earlier version of the Farnese globe. He showed a connection between the two is not possible simply because of large differences in star positions and also was evidently not aware of the colures that appear on the Farnese globe.

If you understand that Thiele was a philoligist, you understand that means he is studying the language etc of something that is being studied. In this case, declamatio materials such as the Almagest. So what he is doing is the same thing as our analogy of a Lord of the Rings analysis by a fan analyzing from within the story itself.

Georg came out with his book containing the theory that this Farnese statue was proof of Hipparchus, in 1898. Almost a hundred years later something very revealing was said by a man named Valerio in 1987. He said: “the globe represents the state of knowledge at the time of the Almagest“. Very true. But since the Almagest was forged right around the same time as the statue…well. There you go.

Georg’s whole argument supposedly proving this was this: “would not an artist who wanted to display Atlas supporting a celestial sphere choose the most famous and widely known version as a model?

Yep. That’s it. That’s his “proof”.

He was taken to task for this the following year (1899) with a quite interesting argument found in Researches into the origin of the primitive constellations of the Greeks, Phoenicians and Babylonians by Robert Brown.

An amusing instance of reactionary scholarship has been recently supplied by Georg Thiele, Antike Himmelsbild 1898.
Unconvinced by the works of Hommel and Jensen, he holds that the Zodiac was put together by Asiatic Greeks. Noticing
that the Astronomical Tablets quoted by Epping and Strassmaier (Astronomisches aus Babylon) are subsequent to Alexander, he argues that the knowledge in them was probably derived from Greek sources. This, in the abstract, is perfectly possible; but had Herr Thiele, who, it is almost needless to say, is not an Assyriologist, extended his researches further into the cuneiform records, and been acquainted with such documents, as e.g..Tablet No. 85-4-30, 15 (The Te Tablet), which belongs to the reign of Dirayavana 1, and is quite unaffected by Greek influence, he would have been aware that the Zodiac was familiar to the Babylonians centuries prior to Alexander. The Te Tablet, as we have it, was doubtless, as Mr. Pinches agrees, a copy of an earlier document; for no one in Babylon was inventing zodiacs abont B.C. 500. A single monument such as this, is sufficient to destroy Herr Thiele’s whole elaborate theory in a moment.

Geez! Finally some sanity! Great argument. It also adds to our list of items I have already shown you pointing to proof they – the ancients – knew about all this much earlier than any supposed “Greek Astronomers”.

Even wikipedia offers some interesting insight –

However, because the globe contains no actual stars, and because the circles on the globe are drawn inexactly and ambiguously by a sculptor copying the Hellenistic model rather than by a modern astronomer, the dating of the globe is still uncertain and its source or sources remain controversial; Schaefer’s conclusions have been strongly contested (e.g., Dennis Duke, Journal for the History of Astronomy, February 2006) most particularly on the ground that regardless of the globe’s date the constellations on it show large disagreements with the only existing work by Hipparchus.

Right. That would be because it was done before the declamatio “Hipparchus” work was even created, or because the sculptor never saw it at all.

So, what really was the deal with this Farnese Atlas statue, where did it come from? First, let’s look at who this Farnese character was.

Alessandro Farnese (5 October 1520 – 2 March 1589 was a Catholic cardinal who was also the grandson of Pope Paul III. You know, the same Pope who established the Jesuit order in 1540 when Alessandro was a young man of 20.

Later, Alessandro actually paid for building the Jesuits m their very own church, called the Church of the Gesù. When he died in 1589, he was so tight with the Jesuits that they actually buried him before the high altar in that church. It was designed by Michelangelo, who I believe also fabricated this Farnese statue.

Church of the Gesu in Rome
– notice Farnese’s name on it just above the IHS symbol.

Michelangelo was well-known for creating “Greek” statues. For example, between 1493 and 1494 he bought a block of marble, and carved a larger than life statue of Hercules, which was sent to France and subsequently disappeared sometime in the 18th century. He also created statues of Bacchus (another supposed Greek-spawned idea); the Virgin Mary grieving over the body of Christ, and a statue of the biblical David completed in 1504, sixteen years before Farnese was born.

Note the style of the feet as compared to the Farnese commissioned “Atlas” statue and then compared to Michelangelo’s unfinished “bearded slave” statue that was worked on between 1530-34. I’m sure the obvious extreme similarity between the Farnese statue and Michelangel’s slave statue will not be lost on you.

Full size of Atlas Farnese for further comparison –

And here’s one that Michelangelo even titled Atlas from the same time period – image from here.

If you notice closely the descriptions of the Farnese Atlas out there, you’ll see things like this  – denoting that it first “showed up” in the early 1500’s,

The Farnese Atlas first came to modern attention in the early sixteenth century when it became part of the collection of antiquities in the Farnese Palace in Rome, hence its name.

and that:

The Almagest (Book VIII, chap. 3) gives a detailed discussion on the construction of solid globes for showing stars.

 

Since we already know WHEN that book really first showed up, that lines up rather nicely with our declamatio-as-a-statue idea here.

Then there’s things like this – showing that these so-called ancient statues were only located at the Farnese homes, and then they essentially re-appeared with all this “history” about them in the 1700’s .

At the time, the sculptures provided decorative furnishing for different Farnese family residences in Rome and Parma. Then, Elizabeth Farnese (1692-1766), the Queen Consort of Spain (wife of Philip V), who owned the collection by inheritance, passed it on to her son, Charles, who then became the first king of the new Bourbon dynasty of Naples in 1735.

And you see things like this

Named the Farnese Atlas after its collectors — the wealthy Italian Farnese family whose status included cardinals and popes with boundless appetites for antiquity — and its subject, the sculpture is believed to be a 2nd century CE Roman copy of a Greek sculpture.

Believed to be. Nice wording. So Jesuit sub-understanding of them.

This thing IS NOT from the “2nd century CE”.

I think it’s pretty obvious Michelangelo did it, it is exactly his style. Or, at the very least, he oversaw or trained someone else to do it. Then there’s the fact that this statue was “discovered” and added to Farnese’s collection in the early 1500’s, but there is not hard info as to where, supposedly, it was found.

Oh! And then there’s this – way down in somewhere you wouldn’t easily find this if you were just looking for Farnese Atlas, you see this in wikipedia –

The [Farnese] collection contains many copies of ancient Greek originals…

Farnese Cup
Farnese Bull, Farnese Hercules, Farnese Flora, Lars, Athena, and Farnese Gladiator came from the Baths of Caracalla
Venus Kallipygos (Callipige Aphrodite)
Pan and Daphnis
Farnese Atlas
Farnese Minerva (from Velletri)
Farnese Homer
Farnese Bacchus
Farnese Diadumenos (British Museum)
Farneses Hermes (British Museum)
Farnese Captives

At this point, I would have to say that it is quite obvious that the Catholics were fabricating ancient Greek statues to go with all their declamatio Greek crap.

Really sick thing to do to humanity.

Let their be LIES is fast becoming my new favorite way to describe this utterly despicable behavior.

– – –

That should do it for a rough overview of the “scene” here, and I think now we’re ready to start really getting into the kind of ancient history they don’t want to talk about – starting with the Nesilim.

I think I’d like to begin by bringing up two of Otto Neugebauer’s statements again –

“…no material is available from any other site in spite of many statements to the contrary in the literature.”

“At present it is open to anyone to guess whether it is significant or purely accidental that we have no texts from the time before 300 b.c. in contrast to the very complete coverage for the next two and one-half centuries.”

 

The excavations at Hattusa – the capital of the people wrongly named the “Hittites” – yielded tens of thousands of cuneiform diplomatic, administrative and legal documents as well as religious and mythological texts, from which it is possible to reconstruct the history of the Hittite kingdom, society and religion.

Tens of thousands. Really think about that for a moment.

Why don’t we hear hardly anything about them?

and…

More tablets at other Nesilim sites were only discovered since the 1990s – and we STILL hear pretty much nothing about them.

Something is very wrong here.

Another area of lying is in what happened to Babylon.

Mursili I in arose from an alliance between the Hittites [the Nesilim] and the Kassites (the Chaldeans), the incentive for the Hittites [the Nesilim] being the rich spoils of Babylon, and for the Kassites the prospect of creating a new ruling dynasty in Babylonia.

And about the Greeks –

The Nesilim didn’t call them Greeks, called them Achaeans in 2000 B.C. The Nesilim conquered the Greeks.

Dr. Irit Ziffer notes:

Hattusili III also maintained stable relations with Babylon and Assyria. It was only in western Anatolia that all was not quiet. The conflict was with Wilusa, identified with (W)ilios-Troy in Homer’s epics, and over the control of some islands, among them Lazpa (Lesbos ). Wilusa had been subordinate to the Hittites since the 17th century B.C.E. Hattusili’s brother and predecessor, Muwatalli II, who defeated the Egyptian army at the Battle of Kadesh on the Orontes River, signed a treaty with King Alaksandu of Wilusa, identified as Alexander, prince of Troy. Many believe the tradition reflected in the Iliad is based on the ancient reality in western Anatolia during the second millennium B.C.E., which was the arena of contention between the Hittites and Ahhiyawa (Mycenaean Greece ), the Achaeans (Greeks ) in the Homeric texts.

There are also clear parallels between the Bible and Nesilim writings in other areas. (see The Reckoning chapter two also) For an example, one historian tells us that –

In the mythological texts, there is the creation of man from clay.

Yea? Where is it? Why can’t we find it easily online? Sounds like a pretty significant find to me!

And then we get some pretty wild stuff like this – A Bronze Age ‘World War Zero’ that brought down three ancient civilizations – that attempts to explain the abrupt and unexplained disappearance of the Nesilim. Now objectively, archaeologists have found evidences of a huge battle in Germany (by the banks of the Tollense River) harking back to circa 1250 BC – that involved over 4,000 men equipped with dedicated weapons.

As you can see, the whole subject of the Nesilim is quite the area of “problems” historically for the Let there Be Lies medieval slavemasters. Hell, they can’t even refer to them by their right name half the time.

As if all that wasn’t bad enough?

Then there’s the astrology and astronomical skills I have been able to piece together that they – the Nesilim – had.

Remember how Otto was going on about “System B” measurements as part of trying to discredit any idea of anyone prior to Hipparchus and/or 300 B.C. being able to take accurate Lunar (moon) astronomical measurements? Actually, rather than taxing anyone’s memory about it, I think I better bring those statements here again because now we are going to focus on that much more closely.

Here they are:

#1 – Kugler recognized in his Babylonische Mondrechnung (1900) that two different methods existed in Seleucid Mesopotamia for the prediction of the lunar movement.

#2 – In a text from this second system, henceforth called ‘ System B,’ he found in the colophon the name of Kidinnu, while Weidner discovered the name of Nabu·rimannu in a text of the more primitive system (‘ A ‘). Since both names occur also in classical sources (e. g. Strabo and Pliny) it has become customary to consider Nabu-rimannu and Kidinnu the inventors of the lunar theories A and B respectively.

#3 – Both systems contain schemes for the variable length of daylight depending upon the position of the sun in the ecliptic. In these schemes equinox corresponds in System A to the solar position Aries 10°, in System B to Aries 8°. This difference in the position of the vernal point plays a central role in the discussion about the Babylonian discovery of the precession.

Now here’s a couple of the animated images again of what this means.

As in what Zodiac constellation you see when the sun is at the spring equinox –

and how that changes because of Precession –  note the top circle moving around the “north” constellations.

This system B was known well before 315 B.C.

 

Some arguments –

Watch this oft-cited man – who also attacked the new (2017) Plimpton 322 article proving ancient knowledge of trigonometry –  try to disregard the early knowledge of precession that System B demonstrates. (my underlining below)

  1. Gary Thompson – “Standardisation of the calendar was necessary for the discovery of precession. The lunar calendar scheme was unsuitable for anything but approximate time timekeeping.
  2. Gary Thompson – Pleiades. “Evidence that may show that an ancient culture knew of the displacement of a certain star or stars cannot be cited as evidence that they knew about the phenomenon of precession. Precise knowledge of the effect of precession on the position of various stars over long periods of time is a different matter to the observation that certain stars may no longer rise and set where they once did. The latter observation is likely to be made in any society which might have observed particular stars from fixed monuments over a long period of time, but does not necessarily suggest any awareness of precession. The 2 concepts should not be confused in discussion.

For an excellent, less hysterical and retarded refutations against these two obvious shills (Thompson and Neugebauer) plus better arguments “for” that ancient knowledge of precession, please see Astrology in Mesopotamian Culture, an essay by A. E. Thierens.

– – –

Did the Nesilim know about precession and then pass it to the Babylonian (Chaldeans)?

Short answer?

Yes.

Long answer – let’s take this System B idea back to the Nesilim and learn a little more about them.

Artist’s recreation of Hattusha, the capital city of the Nesilim, circa 1300 BC – image from here.

It is from some of those tens of thousands of tablets that we know that the particular type of nobility set-up we know in Europe and Britain came from the Nesilim (Hittites).

As for the elites of the Hittite society, most of the high-ranking nobles, who contributed to the core of the army, unsurprisingly belonged to the landholding class. Their large rural estates bolstered the agriculture of the country with a plethora of crops, livestock and orchards – which in turn made their military duties seasonal, with productive months equating to less raiding, forays and campaigning. Simply put, these men left their homes and went to war to protect (or increase) their own lands and wealth, as opposed to opting for just a ‘career’ – much like the early Romans. To that end, the allure of plunder and booty, in the form of both prisoners-of-war and livestock, was reason enough for many of the aristocratic families (especially settled on the frontiers) to try their hand at providing military aid to their king.

Nesili is the oldest of the Indo-European languages to have been written – in cuneiform; even more ancient than Greek and Latin. But even historians refuse to call it by its right name, to this day, still calling it the Hittite language per the University of Chicago and the Hittite dictionary project, but at least they recognize the significance of the language.

Hittite is the oldest Indo-European language known — older than Greek, Latin, or Sanskrit. As an Indo-European language, Hittite is related to modern-day languages like English: the Hittite word for “water” is watar! But it is not always that transparent. English “who” is also the same word as Hittite kwis.

They were also quite advanced in their artwork, as this ivory carving shows, but what most don’t know is that it is “myth” – astronomy – that is being depicted for those “in the know” back at that time.

Megiddo Ivory – Nesilim

In an article about interpreting a priestly instruction in Nesili called the Phaistos Disk- see below

This syllabic script was Semitic, but could be used to write the Anatolean language spoken in Kanes. The town was called Nesa in the local dialect and the language was called Nesili. The Hittites, who spoke the non Indo European language Hatti, took the power of parts of Anatolia allready before 2000 BC. Hattusilis I became king of the Hittite kingdom ca. 1650 BC. He brought scribes from Nesa to the Hittite Capital and introduced Nesili as the written language of the Hittites. Many texts have been found in the Hittite Capital from the period 1650-1200 BC. The language is called Hittite, but is in fact Nesian. Hittite has a considerable number of Acadian words, but they are uninteresting for us, when we want to study Anatolian.

The point being that they called themselves Nesilim, and their important tablets were in Nesili.

Alright. Now that we have a little bit of familiarity with the extreme importance of the Nesilim as the predecessor to not only the language, religion and artificial social hierarchy of England, Europe and the Roman Catholic church, but also to imparting to Babylon their knowledge of astronomy – which was far superior – I’d like to introduce you to an absolutely wonderful and bravely done article titled: Thinking Hattusha: Astronomy and Landscape in the Hittite Lands from 2011.

He starts off correctly noting that Nesili (Hittite) has been attested, from ca. 1800 BC to 1100 BC, as being the official language of the Nesilim Empire. What’s interesting is that it was a “dead” language called Hattic that was supposedly used for all the religious rituals – which in most cases is where the priests hid the coded astronomy.

It has been argued that the latter group language, Hattic, was a dead language used only in religious rituals during most of
Hittite history and that, at the end of the kingdom (circa 1200 bc) even Nesili was used only for state politics and religious purposes.

For example, they were using 12 astrological signs for star systems – encoded – and they also knew about which ones were planets. An example of encoded artwork was these Royal standards –

First being the “sun” with a grid chart pattern surrounded by 7 planets, the second showing Aries “horns” at the bottom and the other 11 constellations marked in the “spikes”.

The author marks the above two images as being circa 1800 B.C., “(a) and (b) proto-Hittite metal discs with possible astral symbolism from excavations in Alaca Hüyük, c. 18th century b.c.” but please bear in mind that is based on a wrong dating system of equidistant astrological constellations, and should probably actually be another 1000 years earlier than that. We discussed that earlier, if you recall.

 

The Nesilim king was the supreme priest of the solar – astronomy – cult. Here is an absolutely perfect example of encoded astronomy, clearly showing delineation of twelve constellations.

Besides, the Sun-Goddess of the Earth, an avatar of the Sun-Goddess of Arinna, represented the sun’s course during the hours of the night, while conveying the spirits of the dead to the underworld with the help of the so-called “twelve deities of the underworld”.

Note: They had Ishtanu aka Ishtar – one of the constellations – depicted mythologically as a “sex goddess”. Quite tongue-in-cheek, if you understand what that is really about.

To further confuse (and obscure) the importance of that, they had a “male” Sun God who also gets named Ishtanu.

…The problem arises when another solar deity is brought into consideration. This was the Sun God of Heaven, a clearly male aspect of the deity. He was called Ishtanu (to be compared with the Hattic female Eshtan) by the Hittites, while in parallel Luwian, Hurrian or Akkadian texts he is identified with Tiwad, Shimegi and Shamash, the corresponding male solar deities, respectively. Hittite kings refer to themselves as “My Sun”, while a winged solar-disk was used to crown the King …for royal names in monumental inscriptions and royal seals (see Figure 2). In fact, the Hittite kings often mirrored the image of the Sun God of Heaven (see Figures, 3, 4 and 5)

Do you know why they encoded a winged solar disk? Not many people do.

For two reasons, basically.

One – the “disk” represented the ecliptic plane:

With the “wings” representing the movement of the constellations –

In fact, Gonzalez points out that just about all the “divinities” –  standing in as encoded myth representing heavenly bodies – were apparently represented with wings in Hittite art.

The second –

Was apparently a veiled reference to the rightful “King” being able to “fly” amongst the stars or “heaven” as well as being from there.

On p. 5 of Gonzalez’s article, he starts discussing some other evidence of astronomical knowledge of the Nesilim, in descriptions of pictures related to the temples he was examining.

Images of Yazilikaya, the important religious enclosure to the northeast of Hattusha, outside the walls. Summer solstice sunset alignment of the monumental gate of the sacred precinct (a). Sections of the procession of male deities with an astral character in Hall A showing: the winged Moon-God and the Sun God of Heaven (b), winged god(dess) Pirengir (c) and the bulls Serri and Hurri holding up the sky while standing on the sign of the Earth (d). Finally, the twelve gods of the underworld in the western wall of Hall B (the number of these divinities might be related to the twelve months of the year) (e). See the text for further discussion. Photographs by Juan Antonio Belmonte, (a), and Margarita Sanz de Lara, (b) to (e).

Note: on p. 6, one of the names they gave for the moon was “kashku”.

Particularly (c) above is a wonderful example of not only having the NAMES of the constellations clearly coming right on down from the Nesilim to medieval times – bulls – what is important about this is the clear representation of knowledge of what constellation the earth was in – which could only be ascribed to that vernal point in regards to precession – ie: The Age of Taurus or the “Bull” standing on the sign of the Earth“.

They had a SIGN for the earth. That’s really quite the accurate perspective for supposed primitives who Catholic and British apologists still want to hide were who they were. They knew they were on a planet and they viewed it in relation to other planets and constellations.

Doesn’t sound very “primitive” to me.

The encoded “holding up the sky” by the bulls “Serri and Hurri” is pretty clear as an astronomical reference, as is the cover story of gods and other mystical claptrap meant to obscure it for the masses. Exactly like the Catholics did, and the British nobility did for centuries.

The Age of Taurus, or the “Bull” that the Nesilim were depicting in image (c) gets re-assigned and misdirected onto “the Greeks and Babylonians” by the Catholic and British apologists. Even in this 2012 paper, you see NO MENTION whatsoever of the Nesilim (Hittites) – who were way before them.

Several constellations are mentioned by Homer and Hesiod, including Orion, Boötes, and the Bear (Ursa Major), which is also called the Wagon. A few conspicuous stars are mentioned: Arcturus, Sirius, and the Pleiades. These names therefore go back to the beginning of Greek literature. The constellations of the Babylonian zodiac were borrowed, probably in the fifth century bce, with minor modifications. For example, where the Babylonians had the Bull of Heaven and the Great Twins, the Greeks placed our Taurus and Gemini. However, our Aries (the ram) corresponds to the Babylonians’ “Hired Laborer.” The Babylonians originally called Libra the “Claws” of the scorpion and counted it as a distinct part of a double constellation. In the Hellenistic period, Greek astronomers first called this constellation “Claws” and later “Balance,” a name that also had Babylonian roots.
(
Constellations and named stars by James Evans;Published Online: 26 OCT 2012)

This is where what we discussed earlier comes into play, Thieren’s essay where he starts from using a fixed point, i.e. the conjunction of the vernal equinox with the first point of the constellation Aries to lay out the Ages. Notice what he has the bull as –

Twins: 6534-4383 B.C.
Bull: 4383-2232 B.C.
Ram: 2232-81 B.C.

Bearing in mind he was still using the whole equal time per constellation (30 degrees each of a circle) idea to DATE historical events. This was supposedly based on viewable vernal point constellations, named as 12 constellations, each 30 degrees long adding up to a full 360 degree circle lasting the total length of 25,772 years of precession –

I had said earlier:

I say that CANNOT be accurate because that assumes that all the dating previously was based on a this 30 degree business that had not been DONE yet.

But I didn’t finish the thought out. The rest of that is that if the 30 degree division was what was used, then it goes back to the Nesilim. That is astounding enough all by itself, shooting down as it does all the BS about Greeks and Babylonians being the source of that, but how much more astounding would it be to find out that they used the ACCURATE length of the constellations?

A lot. Only part of the fall-out would be that he “historic events” timeline would change drastically, and I mean DRASTICALLY.

Even if we used Theiren’s essay dating system, look at what that means in regards the Nesilim. Since they specifically used the symbology of the bulls to represent their time period. That puts them as being in that 4383-2232 B.C. time period.

We can’t even say they started at the end of that “age” because they used this astronomical representation pretty much for most of the time up to, during, and after they conquered Babylon – therefore bumping that event to somewhere prior to 2232 B.C. That’s somewhere between a 800 to a 1000 year difference from what slavemaster historians want to put the Fall of Babylon at.

The other important factor here is the relationship of Nesilim (Hittite) King Mursili to the dating of the Fall of Babylon.

Mursili I in arose from an alliance between the Hittites [the Nesilim] and the Kassites (the Chaldeans), the incentive for the Hittites [the Nesilim] being the rich spoils of Babylon, and for the Kassites the prospect of creating a new ruling dynasty in Babylonia.

Remember – scholars are now having to at least give a nod to that a change took place when the Nesilim took over Babylon saying things like: “…astronomical traditions were greatly strengthened. Catalogues of heliacal risings of the Moon and stars appear.”

As in – this level of knowledge wasn’t there before the Nesilim and their allies (Kassites/Chaldeans) took over, with the Kassites running Babylon as a vassal state for the Nesilim.

The same scholar noted:

Tablets left from the era between 1500 and 1250 BC speak of methods for calculating the position and appearance of Venus…” that it repeats its pattern approx. every 8 years.

He’s talking about the Venus tablet, #63 Enuma Anu Enlil which is actually from 700 B.C. but they assume the knowledge came from around 800 years earlier because of what it notes.

Ok, now this is a chart someone put together of that copied ancient data in 7th century B.C. and then that gets used to point out that there are only four possible dates for the sack of Babylon. The tablet described the rising and setting of Venus during the reign of Ammisaduqa (a descendant of Hammurabi):

The four possibilities gleaned from the above were stated to be:

We now know that is WAY off, because look at this that Gonzalez noted from one of the Nesilim tablets called a prayer of King Mursili who caused the Fall of Babylon –

In this respect, a prayer of Mursili II (c. 1321–1295 b.c.) reports a solar omen that occurred while he was on campaign in the land of Azzi in his ninth or tenth regnal year. Often identified as a solar eclipse, it has allowed the dating of Mursili’s tenth year to 1311 b.c. and the fixing of the chronology of the period.

The other guys paper then brings up tablet #20 from Enuma Anu Enlil which mentions a lunar eclipse, dated 14 Siwanu, at the end of the reign of Shulgi and another tablet, #21, mentions a lunar eclipse, dated 14 Addaru, at the end of the Ur III dynasty ending with the reign of Ibbi-Sin.

These two lunar eclipses are separated by 42 years of reign. Now what this guy did was look for three pairs of eclipses spaced 42 years apart between 2200 and 1850 B.C. Do you see what he did there?

We already know the Nesilim, who conquered Babylon, were referring to earth and sun as being “in” the Bull constellation which ended in 2283 B.C. (at a minimum), so my point here is that perhaps adjusting back to BEFORE 2200 BC may find another set of eclipses matching these later tablets descriptions.

But let’s look at this guys chart. Notice there is one right there at 2063 B.C.

But he refuses to choose that one, which actually makes MUCH more sense in relation to Nesilim (Hittite) records that do not agree with the Bible – either Catholic or Jewish.

If we look at the other chart he included of estimated reigns of Nesilim (Hittite) Kings, he’s got the first ruler starting at 1670 B.C. which is impossible because, again, they were tracking the Age of Taurus.

But now, at least, we could say that we have an error range narrowed down. This guy is off by at least 500 years for the beginning of the Nesilim kingship/empire, which was before the change in Age to “Ram God” or Aries. In fact, that actually lines up with that there is another chronology that actually puts the Nesilim/Hittites arriving well prior to the two eclipses marking the fall of Babylon at 1977 B.C. and 1912 B.C.

There are theoretically 108 years from the first known Nesilim King to Mursili, who conquered Babylon. If the Fall was at 1977 BC, that would put that first King at right around 2085 BC which is quite close to that first eclipse pair noted above at 2053 B.C., but like I said, we need to see if there are some earlier.

I’ll say it again, the powers that be don’t like this kind of timeline at all because it annihilates all the biblical and greek crap as being what it always has been – a red herring.

Let’s continue on with Gonzalez paper, now that we have that dating business all sorted somewhat, because now we can get into some really interesting points that support the idea that they knew about precession (aka System B); had delineated 12 constellations, etc., and that they even used the Pleiades to determine something very important.

Gonzalez p. 11 –

In this line of argument, the SANGA-priest of the Sun-goddess of the Earth slept “under the stars” at the temple courtyard regularly and it is possible that one of his duties on those nights was astronomical observing for the appropriate timing of festivals.

Did they have astronomical equipment they “shouldn’t” have had? (as per the “primitive” story line of historians)

Yep.

Remember what I said much earlier:

You could roughly say that the requirements to measure precession would include: knowledge of trigonometry and a telescope to properly calculate the distances to the Sun and Moon, the accurate tracking and recording of of solstices and equinoxes, and complete (or essentially complete) records of all such accurate calculations going back at least several hundred years.

A telescope.

Which isn’t supposed to be “invented” until what…the 1600s AD or so? There will be more about all that in a later article.

Then there is the Antikythera Mechanism is a mechanical instrument that was discovered in an ancient shipwreck at the beginning of the twentieth century. It  was discovered on 17 May 1902 by archaeologist Valerios Stais. It is a complex clockwork mechanism composed of at least 30 meshing bronze gears.

The Antikythera mechanism (Fragment A – front);
visible is the largest gear in the mechanism, approximately 140 millimetres (5.5 in) in diameter

It had several pointers showing the positions of the moon and sun and the planets in the zodiac, the approximate date according to a lunisolar calendar, and several other dials for various calendar phenomena and predicting eclipses.

This computer-generated reconstruction depicts what the front and the back would have looked like –

Computer generation of Tony Freeth’s reconstruction – image from here:

It is not “from the 2nd century B.C” as some like to say – that’s just them trying to align it with the declamatio Hipparchus crap. It is from much earlier. It is actually a somewhat cruder version of what the Nesilim were using – who had conquered the Achaeans, remember. (the Greeks). Nothing of its nature would be created again (at least visibly) until the astronomical clocks of the Renaissance period, some 1500 years later.

So, while on “sleeping under the stars” assignments, what sorts of things were important to the Nesilim to track?

In this sense, in central Anatolia, the crucial times of the agricultural year were fall, between September and November, and spring, between mid-March and mid-June, the times respectively of the reaping and the sowing. These were the moments of two of the most important Hittite feasts, the AN.TAH.SUM and the nuntarriyashas festivals….The festival was dedicated to the supreme gods of the land, the Sun-goddess of Arinna and the Storm-god of Hatti, and had a certain number of peculiarities. The most important for our interests are the activities celebrated on the 11th day of the feast when the “old year” was carried symbolically to the hešta-house (a sacred precinct connected with the ancestor cult) in Hattusha.

It is likely that the Hittites counted their time in lunar months (the existence of the “festival of the month” is a trace of this) but we do not know the precise organization of this calendar or how they handled the rule (if any) to accommodate the lunar year with the cycle of the seasons, which was of course governed by the tropical (solar) year. Eleven days is the difference between the duration of a purely lunar year of 354 days and an average solar year of 365 days, so the special occasion of the AN.TAH.SUM festival 11th day could have a meaning within the context of an appropriate working lunisolar cycle. We will come back to this important point at the end of this section.

That, ladies and gentlemen, shows exactly what the later dubbed System B was about, and this author has just shown that the Nesilim KNEW about that very important difference in length – which also shows knowledge of precession.

Reprise:

…Knowledge of precession requires: (1) a series of reasonably accurate observations/records spread over a considerable period of time, and (2) a reasonably accurate knowledge of the length of the year. The latter will will eventually lead to the differentiation between the tropical and the sidereal year.

Which the Nesilim clearly knew.

That’s that 11 days.

celebrated on the 11th day of the feast when the “old year” was carried symbolically to the hešta-house

And yet…this kind of knowledge has been, despite the discoveries at Hattusha, still thrown way forward in time to the Babylonians only

Texts show that sophisticated mathematics existed in the Old Babylonian Period. Texts also show that Babylonian astronomy of comparable sophistication did not exist until the Seleucid Period. Only from about the 5th-century BCE onwards, the Babylonians employed the 19-year cycle for reconciling the lunar year with the solar. Aided by this, they were able to make an accurate calculation of new moons, new years and leap-years, and to fix them accordingly.

The other “festival of the year”, or EZEN witassiya, was celebrated in winter and apparently was the moment normally selected for the enthronement of the king.

Really note this next part –

The question, then, is how the Hittites adjusted the cycles of the sun and the moon.

There is scattered evidence that certain festivals, major and minor ones, were not celebrated on a regular yearly basis but over longer periods of time. Local festivals celebrated every three years have been suggested. There is also scarce evidence that some large festivals (or parts of them, such as the ceremonies of the 11th day of the AN.TAH.SUM festival) may have been celebrated on a six-yearly basis. Finally, there are proofs that the festival of the god Telepinu in the city of Hanhana was celebrated every nine years.

Three years is the minimum necessary for operating a workable simple lunisolar cycle (if it is calibrated through independent solar or stellar observations) and six and nine are multiples of this period. Were the ceremonies of the AN.TAH.SUM festival 11th day connected to the coupling of the monthly and yearly cycles? This is a possibility that we should take into account, and which could be relevant for the later archaeoastronomical analysis of the data.

Obviously, that was exactly what the 11th day was about, as well as the 3, 6, and 9 year multiple special “events” that they noted.

Fig. 9 description –  Hittite monuments of a suggested funereal character: the unidentified cyclopean chamber on the summit of Gavurkalesi Hill (a), Tudhaliya IV’s Hall B in Yazilikaya (b), and Suppiluliuma II’s Chamber 2 (k′′) in the Upper City of Hattusha (c). All three structures are aligned in a close to the meridian axis, and the two monuments (and the decoration in Hall B) are facing north, suggesting a common purpose for such different structures. Photographs courtesy of Margarita Sanz de Lara.

Note re: pic B –

As to Yazilikaya, there are a few specialists who identify the site not simply as the mausoleum of Tudhaliya IV but as the actual location of the hesta-house, the mortuary shrine related to the AN.TAH.SUM festival and the site where the spirits of the dead Kings of Hatti dwelt.

That is where they symbolically carried “out” the New Year to.

On p. 19 Gonzalez had made a circular diagram (figure 11) noting points of the compass, where he had drawn lines denoting the 61 monuments, temples etc. that he had checked their compass orientation on. He noticed that this showed –

…a clear concentration of alignments near to the solstices, or even some of the cardinal directions. Clearly this fact deserved further investigation.

He also noted that several Hittite monuments show a marked astronomical meaning, either meridian, equinoctial, or solstitial. Attempting to simply his math here (not sure if I can but I’ll try) he basically talks abut that Chamber 1 is correlated with the winter solstice sun, another one is oriented to the equinox, and some others are oriented along meridian alignments. One of the more interesting ones, to me, is this mathematical/astronomical discovery he noted –

“…located nearly at the middle of the extreme northern declinations of the sun at the summer solstice, c. 24º, and the
moon at major lunastice, c. 28½º. The planet Venus’s extreme northern declination is another suggestive alternative. Finally, there is the satellite peak at -17¾º, surprisingly matching the declination of Sirius, the brightest star in the Anatolian sky in the thirteenth century b.c.73 Thus, every single significant peak in our histogram has a simple, straightforward astronomical explanation.”

Venus, Sirius, summer solstice and lunastice are all exactly marked in the layouts of certain buildings!

Not exactly an accident. Clearly.

Jürgen Seeher described that:

At the beginning of summer, and for just a short time in late afternoon, the light of the descending sun illuminates the image of Tudhaliya IV in Hall A of the sanctuary, while the rest of the year it stays in shadow. This is certainly a summer solstice phenomenology and could be connected to the main gate orientation and to the funereal aspect of this rock shrine.

Hall A, Yazilikaya, is the one that showed –

“Sections of the procession of male deities with an astral character in Hall A showing: the winged Moon-God and the Sun God of Heaven (b), winged god(dess) Pirengir (c) and the bulls Serri and Hurri holding up the sky while standing on the sign of the Earth”

Gonzalez also notes that the the impressive Yerkapi (the Sphinx gate and associated structures) is accurately orientated in the meridian direction suggesting that the north–south axis of the city was known with high precision“.

Sphinx gate – they were taken to Germany for “restoration” in 1917 and then put back.

But, it’s the Lion and King Gates that are really interesting. This is where we get into their specific knowledge of the Pleiades – which is highly advanced knowledge, and I do mean highly.

Kings Gate

Lion’s Gate

These monumental accesses to the Upper City were orientated in such a way (declination of c. 14½º when looking in, see Table 1) that on a certain day in the end of April or the very beginning of May (within the prolectic Gregorian calendar), sunrise could have been observed in the eastern hills from the outside of the Lion gate (see Figure 10) and sunset in a distant horizon from the outside of the King Gate.

This is the origin of the epoch of Beltane, that would later be the main spring festival of the Iron Age and later Celts. They got it from the Nesilim.

Beltane
Celtic ritual amongst the archaeastronomy “standing stones” as depicted in Outlander

Video – beautiful scene depicting Beltane ritual from Outlander

The Dance of the Druids

 

It’s interesting how the lights obviously symbolize the stars, and then the timing of the Rising Sun.

(Side note: No wonder the Catholics wanted to get rid of the Druids. They had the Nesilim astronomical knowledge and the Catholic Priests did too, but they wanted to be the “only ones”)

Next –

…there is a period of around 40 days between the spring equinox (20 to 22 March) and the date of Beltane, which closely resembles the duration of the AN.TAH.SUM festival. …this major festival lasted from the spring equinox to classic ‘Beltane’.

the Pleiades had their heliacal setting in central Anatolia on dates close to 20 March, within a margin of one day, depending on the precise atmospheric conditions, while its heliacal rising was close to 3 May; so the asterism was invisible for a period close to six weeks (nearly 40 days). The importance of the Pleiades within ancient Mesopotamian calendrics is well known…

The Pleiades are located in the Taurus – the bull – constellation. They are the seven brightest stars also called the Seven Sisters.

Taurus doesn’t really look like a bull, except for the “horns” of a bulls head.

We have seen in Figure 4 that the bulls of Teshub …Serri and Hurri, were the handlers of the sky, a duty most likely to be performed near the celestial pole. ….Hence, we could imagine that Teshub’s chariot and its yoke of draught bulls could have been seen by the ancient Hittites in the northern realms of the celestial sphere.

Again, this means they are doing all this in the Age of Taurus, not Aries. They were close to the point of vernal equinox around the 23rd century BC – the beginning of the Nesilim AN.TAH.SUM festival culminating in Beltane – the reappearance of the Pleiades.

How ’bout them apples?

And finally, there’s Temple 5 –

Consequently, if the monuments depicted in Figure 9 were indeed royal mausoleums, their appropriate northern orientation would have helped the soul of the king to pursue his final expectation: that of ascending to dwell with the gods of heaven.

In the same line of argument, Temple 5 has been interpreted as a temple dedicated to the ancestors of the Hittite royal family. However, its orientation, independent of any other pattern described so far, cannot confirm or refute this hypothesis.

The ancestors – tied to the Pleiades and Taurus constellations. Is that where they “came” from? The Nesilim didn’t call them the Pleiades – that’s Greek declamatio crap.

They called them the Sebitti.  (Teshub/Taurus/Ishara’s seven children (stars).

I should add that the Sumerians also took particular note of Beltane, or the return of the Pleiades after the vernal point of Precession. Sumerian – GIŠ/GIkurtal(i) – the Seven. They symbolized the starting of a new season – ok time to plant, to sail, to march without fear of winter storms. The Sumerian month name gu.si.sá is related to the activity of this month, to drive the oxen (gu. si.sá) to the field for the preparation of the soil for the sowing. The rising of the Pleiades at the beginning of the second month is mentioned in the MUL.APIN as well:

On the 1st of Ayaru the Pleiades become visible

An example tablet, Ebay sale item –

By the way – before we go back to where we started with Plimpton 322, check this out. In the Enuma Elish tablets, the name Nebiru was assigned to any visible astronomical object that marks an equinox.

This has been known since way back in 1923! So much for Sitchin’s crap about Nebiru the rogue planet.

Usually, though, it was assigned to Jupiter. In a footnote to his translation of Enûma eliš (in the following E**e) tablet v, Langdon (1923: 156) states that:

“It is on the whole clear that Nibiru (the crossing ) refers to the intersection of the celestial equator and the ecliptic and that the name was applied to Jupiter as representative of the planets which cross from the southern to the northern part of the Way of Anu and vice versa.”

The Marduk Star Nebiru by Immanuel Freedom; 8 November 2015; Cuneiform Digital Library bulletin.

The Truth – Babylon and the Nesilim

– 1.2 Trigonometry knowledge

 

A Pythagorean triple consists of three, positive whole numbers a, b and c such that a2 + b2 = c2. The integers 3, 4 and 5 are a well-known example of a Pythagorean triple, but the values on Plimpton 322 are often considerably larger with, for example, the first row referencing the triple 119, 120 and 169.

The name is derived from Pythagoras’ theorem of right-angle triangles which states that the square of the hypotenuse (the diagonal side opposite the right angle) is the sum of the squares of the other two sides.

“Our research reveals that Plimpton 322 describes the shapes of right-angle triangles using a novel kind of trigonometry based on ratios, not angles and circles. It is a fascinating mathematical work that demonstrates undoubted genius….we see a simpler, more accurate trigonometry that has clear advantages over our own.”

Science Daily; Aug. 17, 2017

 

The tablet, Plimpton 322 is conservatively dated to around 1800 BC.

I believe there is a strong case now that this knowledge was in use by the Nesilim and had been spread out into other areas during their “conquering” phase. I also think this, hiding the Nesilim origins, is the real reason why there is such truly retarded debunking efforts driven by Catholic and British slavemaster-approved “scholars”.

Debunking efforts like –

…the tablet was simply a teacher’s aid for checking students’ solutions of quadratic problems.

or the Otto Neugebauer style “missing piece” argument

Donald Allen, a mathematics professor at Texas A&M University, is also skeptical that the researchers have proven Plimpton 322 was used for trigonometry.

“It is old and accurate, but the interpretation of it as a trig table is conjecture, as it is broken, and the telling part would be contained with the part broken off, and never found,” he said in an emailed statement.

 

Science Daily; Aug. 17, 2017 –

The 15 rows on the tablet describe a sequence of 15 right-angle triangles, which are steadily decreasing in inclination.

The left-hand edge of the tablet is broken and the UNSW researchers build on previous research to present new mathematical evidence that there were originally 6 columns and that the tablet was meant to be completed with 38 rows.

They also demonstrate how the ancient scribes, who used a base 60 numerical arithmetic similar to our time clock, rather than the base 10 number system we use, could have generated the numbers on the tablet using their mathematical techniques.

Base 60 math, trigonometry, that’s pretty something for some so-called “primitives”.

“Plimpton 322 was a powerful tool that could have been used for surveying fields or making architectural calculations to build palaces, temples or step pyramids,” says Dr Mansfield.

He left out one – astronomical calculations. Particularly for precession.

But it must be said, it would also be necessary for star travel.

 

 

 

In conclusion –

You know, it shouldn’t surprise us that Albert Einstein, who came up with the godawful “can’t travel faster than the speed of light” theory, spent quite some time helping the Jesuit Catholics promote the oddest theories of our evolution as part of the suppression of REAL history.

In fact, supporting anything that helps to hide some of the real truths we have uncovered in this library article.

Teilhard de Chardin ... the famous Jesuit who is known as the Father of the New Age Movement. He was also involved in several of the hoaxes used to support evolution such as the Piltdown Man hoax.

Teilhard de Chardin …a Jesuit who is apparently known as the Father of the New Age Movement but who was also involved in several of the hoaxes used to support evolution such as the Piltdown Man hoax.

This photo shows Albert Einstein with the Jesuit, Lemaitre, who was responsible for pushing forward the incredulous "Big Bang Theory" and used Einstein to bring credibility to this impoverished theory.

Image credit and description – This photo shows Albert Einstein with the Jesuit, Lemaitre, who was responsible for pushing forward the “Big Bang Theory” and used Einstein to bring credibility to this impoverished theory.

We started out asking some questions about the history of star and planet knowledge, etc. in ancient times.

  1. Why are they coding it?
  2. Why are they consistently – for centuries on up to now – trying to hide this knowledge from “simple man’s” view?

I believe the ground (or the blockage) has now been well-broken on those two points, in this article.

I then proposed to focus on, look into –

  • There is something in history, prior to Babylon, prior to the Nesilim, prior to…well, anything we “know” that they don’t want people to know.
  • Who is this “they”?
  • Who are they hiding their connection to?
  • Where or Who did they get the knowledge from?

I believe those have now been well documented and a path blazed to the proper time period and people.

The last point of  what would require such precise records.

  • Outer Space viewing, mapping and travel.

Is now also well along the way of setting up for the next REAL history de-cloaking, the final points of:

  • a. we, all of us, originated from somewhere else and did not “evolve” here nor were “apes mixed with aliens” or “engineered”, and we, our ancestors, were already familiar with space travel and had advanced technology or
  • b. we did “evolve” here (pick your method) but this happened much, much earlier than we have been told and we had created a civilization MORE advanced than what we have today. One which somehow disappeared with utterly no trace it ever existed.

Get ready….

To be continued.

 

 

References and notes –

1 – Manufacturing Confucianism by Lionel M. Jensen; Duke University Press, 1997

2 – Lord of The Rings comparison as referenced in Scientology Roots chapter 37, in turn referencing Scientology, A Masked Branch of Masonic Judaism originally published by the 123jump authors at the Scribd website in April 2010. The referenced Pythagoras article within, has been appropriated and used without permission by several opportunistic New Age con-artists, such as this example. At one time, the original also appeared at a website called – Light of the Great Fire – article titled: Pythagoras – or Lord of the Rings Medieval Style.

3 – Backdated Overpopulation Myths and The Forging of the Bible by Virginia McClaughry; published December 17, 2014

4 – My 2009 research article You Are A Den of Vipers and Thieves was originally published anonymously (with my permission) by the 123jump (Scribd name) on January 7, 2010. You can see it, albeit in jumbled up form, at the internet archive. Note: If you’d like to see something rather odd and interesting, check the “save” of it a year later. My article title is the same, but the text was replaced with text from some totally dis-related article that never had anything to do with me or the 123jump authors. In around 2012 or so, as various 123jump authors began to reveal their identities, I corrected my article to show my name. I have uploaded a PDF of that here. *Later supporting research of interest is as follows: Photos of Father Coughlin’s Money!: Questions and Answers 1937 by Virginia McClaughry, posted on April 20, 201. This post contains photos of the 1937 revised edition which Virginia had purchased. There was also a PDF created of the scanned relevant pages which showed the falsely attributed to President Jackson quote. The original source with the false quote (that U.S. military intelligence officer William Pelley of the pro-nazi propaganda front group the Silver Shirts was also mixed up with) was a booklet by J.A. Henckels. You can see that scans I obtained of that in a PDF here.

5 – Discussion by our friend Robert with anonymous person(s) at the ex-Moonie blog; 28 December 2017 – Robert posted questioning the origins of the Bible; 31 December 2017 – response by anonymous with over half of response devoted to past (and fully discredited) Church of Scientology-related attacks on Robert’s friends Mike and Virginia McClaughry; 2 January 2018 – Robert responds; 3 January 2018 – irrelevant and inconclusive response by anonymous and resorting to direct name calling of Robert’s friends: “Mike & Virginia McClaughry are occult new age spies whose natural inclination is to try to discredit the Bible since the Bible exposes the falsehood of their beliefs.