-Jay-

Lars, what is this gibberish supposed to mean? Did you just throw some numbers and terms into Microsoft Blender and pour the resulting mess into your post? The grain sub-samples in Strat IV were all tested with AMS. The sample was of insufficient mass to test in the PGC. Your explaination goes downhill from there.


That's what confidence intervals mean - anything within the range is equally likely. Were that not the case, the interval bounds would be different.

Run the model again. Your peak will be different. You're misunderstanding the fact that the runs of the model drew 874-876 BCE somewhat more often than other numbers and assuming that it means that 874-876 BCE are dramatically more likely to be the real dates. They aren't. It's been explained to you why. You'll say it hasn't, but we know better.


You're trying to contort the science to match the Biblical date, and you're trying to use the Biblical date to support your contortions of the science. Round and round we go. Latching onto a Biblical date as the date is gonna get you into trouble more often than not.

Yes. We've been through this. You've demonstrated quite convincingly that you're understanding of the mathematics involved is rudimentary, at best. You've also demonstrated that you require the Biblical dating to be correct, and will do whatever is necessary to fold, spindle, and mutilate the scientific data to arrive at a conclusion that supports your predetermined result. That may wash with your "followers", but it isn't going to wash here.

regards,

NinJay

Hex

Wait, wait ... Lars, do me the favor of -reading- what you've got here. This is -exactly- the problem that faces Biblical Archaeologists that doesn't face plain Archaeologists. How so? For Archaeologists, there's no problem with the Walls falling in the MB period and the time period when Keynon (and other archaeologists) would put the Isrealites presence via artifactual data during LBIIA.

Why? Archaeologists try and reconstruct history from the evidence of the archaeological record. What you have to do is -discount- one bit of archaeological evidence because it doesn't fit with your story.

Unless, of course, you don't think the walls are important? I remind you:

Which is it Lars? HOW can you reconcile the walls falling in the 1500's BC and the Hebrews presence/destruction layer being around 1300 BC? Which is it?

Now, I did love this next part ...

I will give you a point for effort, but you still don't get it. You can't change the arcaheological findings through sheer will. The walls are a critical issue if you want to talk about Jericho as a whole, but I'd been confining this just to your LBIIA dating arguement. I thought that once we actually made some progress there we could tackle the bigger issue of the wall ...

So, let me get this right ... The walls didn't need to fall for the Isrealites to take Jericho? Maybe that whole bit of Joshua is ... a story?

Actually, Lars, you're the only one here who seems confused (well, except for some of us who try to follow your convoluted logic puzzles ). Kenyon doesn't -redate- the level. She gives an off-hand date for people like you who are concerned with it. If she's so sure that the level dating doesn't agree with the wall date, why doesn't she address that issue anywhere? Hmm? :huh:

Seriously Lars, which is the real important issue that makes it okay to discard evidence from the others? LBIIA date? Wall collapse date? Some eclipse? The pretty story?

Which?

Hex

Reference of this recent research? In a peer-reviewed journal, I hope?

Larsguy47

Sorry, but everything at this point must be on an even playing field since your "peer-reviewed" scholarly journal is just considered part of an anti-Biblical conspiracy anyway. Higher education and universities are just covers for anti-Biblical propaganda. We see this all the time with the leaning of the academic world away from the Bible and Creation and toward atheistic.
I'll try to find the quote for you, but in one Catholic Douay Bible in the beginning the Pope urges Christians and believers to fight against and establish evidence against a growing and subversive movement founded in "higher education" and "science" that was clearly beginning to challenge the Bible. So the polemics between the Bible and the academic world is certainly established. In other words, since the educators themselves are considered biased and influenced by the Illuminati and everybody else they are hardnly any authority by which to establish a rule of establishing fact.

Thus when the system of judgment itself is considered corrupt or biased or even short-sighted, then you have to go with the ACTUAL EVIDENCE.

Case in point. The issue that Xerxes and Artaxerxes were the same king. You don't go to scholars of Greek and Persian history to get their okay on this, because they were taught based upon the propagandistic literature. They are just experts in the details of the propaganda, not the issue of whether these two kings were the same person. So at this point you have to gather all the information available, from archaeology, from varying historical sources, anything, that sheds light on this and then consider everything first hand. That's what you have to do.

Limiting references to those in th academic world based upon "peer-review" is your own fantasy of how reliable or honest the academic base is, which is not shared by everyone who are making direct challenges. The acadmic world is under fire here -- they certainly can't be their own judges.

So the RESEARCH is direct. That is, say in the case of the VAT4956, the text itself. The actual transliteration and astronomical matching of those references that are clear enough to be matched. But this is a perfect example of why "peer-review" doesn't work at this level.

When I was researching the VAT4956, the question of a reference in Line 18 came up where though the tablet was broken off at that point, the ACADEMIC EXPERTS and leaders in the field who were translating this, the very icons themselves in this field of astronomical texts, Abraham Sachs and Hermann Hunger, inserted "the Moon" in a position under the "bright star behind the lion's foot" (MUL KUR sa TIL GIR-URA). This would have occurred around the 15th of the month of Sivan. Now the moon travels through each zodiac sign basically every 2.5 days (2.5 x 12 = 30 = 1 month). The moon was in Virgo on the 5th of the month (Line 14). This was ten days later. Yet Sachs/Hunger inserted the "moon" as the reference here. The moon was clear in Capricorn by now, 4 zodiac constellations away!

Now, in Line 3, Sachs/Hunger are clearly checking positions of the moon as noted in the text against the actual astronomical positions, and thus they noted "an error for the 8th" for a reference for the moon on the 9th which did not match that position in 568BCE. So the question arises, why didn't these scholars, if they actually thought the text intended to read "the moon" here note this would have been a 10-day error! When they left off a reference that this was an "error" then the presumption is that the reference was astronomically correct. It gets worse.

If in fact, the "moon" was not under the BSBLF (beta-Virginis) on the 15th, then which planet was? OR, was there a planet under beta-Virginis on the 15th? Answer: YES! It was Venus.

So what's going on here? I'll tell what. The position of Venus below the BSBLF on the 15th is so specific that it confirms the identification of the BSBLF as "beta-Virginis." However, beta-Virginis became the substitute start for the "Rear Foot of the Lion" (GIR ar sa UR-A) in later astronomical texts from the Seleucid Period, but not in this particular text, which was an earlier text from the same Period. In this case, based upon Line 18, it is confirmed that the Bright Star Behind the Lion's Foot is a beta-Virginis reference, which means the Rear Foot of the Lion was the same actual rear foot of Leo, from ancient times. But, of course, Sachs/Hunger were forcing the newer assignment of the Rear Foot of the Lion to beta-Virginis, as they assign Line 3's reference to the "Rear Foot of the Lion" to beta-Virginis, and thus the "Bright Star Behind the Lion's Foot" must become the star following beta-Virginis in Virgo, which is eta-Virginis.

TRANSLATION: If Sachs/Hunger had inserted Venus where the text was missing, then they couldn't use beta-Virginis as the Rear Foot of the Lion in Line 3. They'd have to follow the text and make the Rear Foot of the Lion sigma-Leonis, which does make up the rear foot of Leo, and make beta-Virginis the bright star just behind Leo.

MEANING? Meaning even the most expert scholars in this field, when it comes to chronology related to the Bible can't be trusted because of their biases.

So basically, you want a commentary for Sachs/Hunger, the renown experts in the field, to comment authoritatively about what's in the VAT4956 when they are the ones busy misrepresenting what's in the text.

Now let me tell you what happens in cases like this. The academic world takes care of its own. The last line of "truth and fact" has to do with whomever the biggest contributor is, who provides the most grants. That becomes the official academic opinion. So what happens when you try to get something like this corrected? NOTHING! I wrote the British Museum, for instance, and told them about this misrepresentation. It was my opinion that Sachs/Hunger deliberately misrepresented this, but I didn't directly state that, only noted that there was an apparent misunderstanding or "error" here since in now way the moon could possibly be in Virgo on this date, and of course, if this was thought to be a scribal error, then Sachs/Hunger should have noted it as an error as usual, but incidentally Venus was in that very position.

The British Museum thanked me and admitted to the error and smugly told me: "He who writes no books, makes no errors." So to this day, with this critical text, I still have seen no official correction or comment by Hunger (Sachs is no longer with us) of this text.

But I'm presuming their illustrious reputations would be tarnished, even if they are not seen as being dishonest or biased, because they'd have to rechart all the references to the Rear Foot of the Lion to sigma-Leonis and the BSBLF as beta-Virginis. Then that opens up a whole can of worms as to why the star identity shifted during the Seleucid Period, which is rather embarassing, and why Sachs/Hunger didn't note that shift. Now I know Sach/Hunger's work so they are experts in this field, translating many texts. This is not an "error" they would have made accidentally. And the translation/transliteration were published twice!

So we're not doing the PEER-REVIEW JIVE TWO STEP this dance, sorry. Everybody is going to be drug out on the carpet and have to deal with the direct information. Our authority, especially for the astronomical texts will be the astronomy programs and the actual match-ups of these individual references. The British Museum and Sachs/Hunger are not considered "objective" in this area. Now I believe Sachs/Hunger were thinking at the time they were perhaps doing the right thing, Hunger seems to be a nice person (I've written him a letter on this), but they certainly cannot be used as a "reference" to what is actually in this text.

You don't use the people who are being attacked as their own self-appointed judges.


REFERENCE:

JUST to give a little visual about this...

http://www.geocities.com/siaxares/Virgo2aa1.GIF

This is a very crude look at how Virgo and Leo are situated for those who have no visual concept. I will use one of my programs to recreate the 15th of Sivan so you can see Venus below beta-Virginis on this date, and also the transliteration by Sachs/Hunger where they insert "the moon" here. Just so everybody can have the visuals. This is our introduction into the REALITY of astronomical dating, a field so refined and biased you have to look at the actual texts themselves and compare what the actual texts represents against what the "scholars" are claiming they say.

LG47

RED DAVE

From Larsguy47:
Shit head paranoia. About what we've come to expect from you. Why don't you hang out here:

http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/

RED DAVE

Hex

Okay, then don't expect me to beleive it. The concept of being "peer-reviewed" is that other experts in the appropriate field, with as much or more knowledge than the author(s), has the ability to comment, or point out errors, or places where they haven't enough evidence to support a claim.

The 'leanings' of the academic world 'away from the Bible and Creation and toward atheistic' isn't exactly a new phenomenon. And it is versed in the idea that science and religion are two different realms.


So ... Galileo and Lyell and Darwin were on on this Illuminatus that flourishes against the Bible?

Man, I really wish the books of Matthew, John and Acts had never mentioned the value of persecution to the faith of Christianity. Even when things are good, they've still got to invent enemies. :huh:

Yep. 'Cause that's what 'scholars' do.

But they are. They judge each other -all- the time. I brought up, for example, the Finkelstein/Devers dislike, for example. Within disciplines, scholars of various schools of thought pick at each other and criticize -all- the time.

The offshoot? Overall, a better quality of scholarship, based off the evidence, that is able to withstand the critical attacks of people looking for weaknesses. Not rank-and-file automitons following the orders of the artificially animated head of Galileo ... :wave:

And, Lars, do you know -why- they chose what they did? What if all the other information lined up and made this the anomaly? And why did you think that you alone warrant the attention of the British Museum to get the to print a retraction? Likely they shuffled your letter off to someone on-staff who was the astronomical expert and if they thought your case had merit, called a few more experts elsewhere to determine if it really did have merit. Is this the work of an Illuminati protecting itself?

No. It's how the world functions. If I want better quality water from my well, I can talk to a plumber or an environmental engineer. Why? Because they work with such issues as mine all the time. As much as I can cobble together a system with my own research, perhaps I might miss some of the intracacies in the overall system of filters and treatments, and thus botch it. Hence, I go to an 'expert'.

Does this mean that I feel there's an Illuminati of plumbers out there, attacking my ability to control water myself? No. It just means that I recognize that other have more knowledge of certain subjects than I do.

Can I refute your Sachs/Hunger 'error'? Nope. I took a few astronomy courses in undergrad, and I've had a number of telescopes over my life, but I'm no expert. And if I had to trust either you or Sachs/Hunger, I'd not choose you. Why? No credentials.

Although, the "PEER-REVIEW JIVE TWO STEP" was cute, even if you have no idea what you're talking about.

Oh, really? So, you have the clay tablets necessary in your living room, do you? And the grain samples from Tel Rehov and the gear for C-14 dating? And the precious Armana letters? And, screw Syncellus, he quotes someone else. And forget the Bible, it was written and edited by different people. And forget your astronomy program, because I don't know if the programmers took into account the Gregorian switch and other calendric manipulations that were done to keep -our- calendar in line with the seasons. You want to do this, let's do it right.

Okay Lars, if we're going back to the 'facts', what's left beside the archaeological record?

Hex

No, no Red Dave ... Don't write Lars off just yet. I'm about to let him do that to himself.

And I want to see his whole walls/occupation arguement for Jericho ... :Cheeky:

Larsguy47

LINE 18 OF VAT4956 "QUICKIE" ASTROPIC!

http://www.geocities.com/siaxares/4JUL568j.JPG


Here is a quick astropic of the date for Line 18 of the VAT496. As noted part of the text was broken off but the position of the planet is specific being immediately below (sap) the "Bright Star at the End of the Lion's Foot" (MUL KUR SA til GIR UR-A). As you can see, Venus is in that position on the 15th of Sivan. Further the moon even when it was in Virgo some 10 days earlier travels through Virgo about 1 cubit or more ABOVE beta-Virginis. So "sap" (immediately below) wouldn't have even applied to the moon's position even when it was passing by beta-Virginis. Sachs/Hunger had a chance to leave this part blank, insert Venus there, or if they believed this was a reference to the moon, insert the moon and note an error of 10 days. They noted an error of just one day for Line 3, suggesting that where no error was indicated, there was an astronomical match.

What Line 18 confirms, though, is that in this particular text, the BSBLF is being assigned to beta-Virginis. Sachs/Hunger however, in Line 14, assign the BSBLF to the next star after beta-Virginis, which is eta-Virginis. So there is a discrepancy between the text star identifications and what Sachs/Hunger is representing. Per the Text the Rear Foot of the Lion (GIR ar sa URA) is thus sigma-Leonis, the actual star making up the rear foot of Leo. The Bright Star Behind the Lion's Foot is actually the star that does follow behind sigma-Leonis, beta-Virginis. Had Sachs/Hunger inserted the correct planet, Venus, it would have established this and forced them to correct their star assignments in both Lines 3 and 14. Thus in Line 3, the Rear Foot of the Lion is misrepresented as beta-Virginis when it should be sigma-Leonis.

Because Line 18 critically contradicts Sach/Hunger's misassignments of these stars in the VAT4956, there's a question as to whether their "mistake" was wholly unintentional. So they not only inserted a planet that never was in that position and certainly not in Virgo on the 15th, they missed the planet that was there, Venus, that is a perfect match!


To my knowledge this has not been corrected yet. So when it comes down to controversial and critical texts like this one, "PEER REVIEW" doesn't work. The actual text itself must be checked against the astronomical program.

I included a bad screen copy of the actual translation for comparison, but you can see a copy of the VAT4956 both transliteration and translation here:

http://becomingone.org/absoluteindex.htm

LG47

spin

"Lars Wilson" has been spreading this stuff over the internet for years.

See here and here

"Larry Wilson" does it here. This is uk.sci.astronomy, where they basically ignored him.

Then there's stuff by one "Dave2002", an example of which is here on a JW forum and "Dave2002" is spinning very much the same stuff as "Lars" and "Larry".

Who knows how many times this same stuff has been rehearsed in various fora around the net before larsguy47 got here? Whatever the case, the copious boring images and repeated phrases and ideas, should be getting to him, but I guess from his repetitiveness here that it isn't.


spin

3DJay

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Part.../babylon1.html
letter to the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses
http://user.tninet.se/~oof408u/fkf/e...furulirev1.htm
Part 2: Discussion Of Historical Evidence

Peace