Jump to content
The World News Media

Ann O'Maly

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Ann O'Maly

  1. VAT 4956 doesn't include observations from 585 BCE. There wasn't a July eclipse in 585 BCE. The eclipses in 585 BCE are not from Saros 59. Here, I've labeled more pictures for you. Remember that -584 is 585 BCE. Remember that -567 is 568 BCE. You're again welcome.
  2. How does this help you? What point are you making with this reference? Really? You seem to thrive on it. Then what would be for 586 BC, etc.? Anyway, the eclipse on VAT 4956 belongs to Saros 59.
  3. Let me try to lay this out for you (although this is more for any interested readers' benefit than for yours). The stars, planets, and Moon are components in a giant sky-clock that keeps perfect time. The 'fixed' stars are like the numbers spaced out on the clock's face. The planets and Moon are like the hands on the clock. Through their cyclical alignments with each other and against the 'fixed' starry backdrop, we can tell the time - the year, the month, the day. Now, to be a 'competent' astrologer in ancient times, you had to be a competent astronomer. You had to interpret what you saw rather than what you wished you had seen. A bad astrologer would lose his job (or his life) if he faked his observations and his report to the court. It was a serious business involving years of rigorous training from childhood (remember Daniel?). Not only that, but the Babylonians depended on genuinely dated observations over centuries to develop their mathematical astronomy/'science' that was eventually passed on to the Greeks and built upon by others. How were those observations dated? They used their calendar, i.e. the name and regnal year of the current ruler, the month, the day, even the time of night the observation took place. Any astrological interpretations coming from those observations have no bearing on the veracity of the celestial phenomena they witnessed. So, when there is a dated astronomical text, we can check those observations, pin them to a BCE date, and hey presto! we can know in modern calendar terms when a king ruled. Thus, the 'stars' are reliable tools for dating kings' reigns.
  4. Don't insult the guy! CC considers himself a veritable polymath. So, getting back to your easy-peasy-lemon-squeezy method for obtaining the year of Cyrus' death without stars and calendars, are you going to enlighten us at all about what that method is? I have my Insight book handy. ...other than the vast wealth of cuneiform astronomical texts direct from the period, thus a reliance on Ptolemy is unnecessary (which has been the case for well over 100 years). Irrelevant. Assurbanipal was an Assyrian who lived before the neo-Babylonian period. Irrelevant. Do you have an easy-peasy-lemon-squeezy method for obtaining the year of Babylon's conquest without the use of stars and calendars? My fingers are poised to work those Insight book pages! 😉
  5. 🤦‍♀️ CC, if you still can't understand something so basic as the astronomical dating convention for BCE dates, what are you doing here? @JW Insider is correct. You are wrong. And what is '599/8/7 BC' about? Are you aware that lunar eclipses can only occur at full moon and that only lunar eclipses can be included in a lunar eclipse cycle? Here, I've drawn a diagram for you: You're welcome.
  6. You confirmed that your post and screenshot had no point to make other than to somehow show me up for not knowing (or agreeing with) ... um ...something. What that something is is anyone's guess as you haven't tied it in with anything we've been discussing.
  7. Same here. But I was interested in your 'much easier method' for obtaining the year of Cyrus' death without stars and calendars. Maybe your method was restricted to flipping open the Insight book and it telling you?
  8. I thought so. A scatter-gun approach to pasting or screenshotting quotes from random works, which barely have even a marginal relevance to the subjects under discussion, doesn't make you appear as informed or as half-intelligent as you imagine, sadly. Try forming a meaningful argument in your own words instead? It's OK. I'm not expecting her to.
  9. Aren't you? When you say ... ... you are being dismissive of the methods used to get to dates like 530 BCE for the year of Cyrus' death and 539 BCE for the year of Babylon's conquest. How do you think one gets to those BCE dates without the ancient sky-clock and calendars? What are your 'easier methods' of getting to the correct dates?
  10. These two problems were resolved. 1) P&D recognized there was an issue with NCBT 1156 being unnamed (see P&D, p. 4, n. 9). So, the intercalary Ululu doesn't belong in Nabopolassar's 19th year. In fact, the intercalary Ululu belongs in Nabopolassar's 18th year as attested in economic tablets from that year (see D.A. Kennedy, JCS 38/2 (1986), p. 207). 2) It cannot be established that Nabopolassar's Year 1 was intercalated. C.B.F Walker collated BM 54209 in the early 1990s. He said the royal name was actually Nabonidus and published the correction in 1996. This was around the same time Galil's book was published, so Galil may not have known about it. Consequently, the number of intercalated years in the cycle beginning 633 BCE is no more than five and in agreement with P&D's placement of intercalary months for Nabopolassar's first 11 years.
  11. Yet you missed that the Babylonians' calendar was lunar-based. And a lunar eclipse can only occur once in a lunar month. That's why lunar eclipses tend to show up in different months. 😆
  12. Only a problem for you (and Watchtower). The matter is settled in academia. I cannot be bothered. Haha, and there it is. OK, fine. In that case, methinks you should let go of the "heavy world of chronology" and stick to the more sedate world of the retired: golf, sudoku, or maybe enroll on a basket-weaving course. Hooroo.
  13. I, AlanF, JW Insider and COJ are competent after all, are we? Then what are you objecting to? We keep telling you, showing you, that Ex-Celebrated WT scholar Furuli, and followers of his work, are mistaken in their conclusions about VAT 4956 and other astronomical tablets, but you keep kicking against the evidence and you are still too scared (or lazy) to verify it for yourself. Come on, Neil. Less blah-blah and more action.
  14. Learn how to - like everyone else. 🙄 "My disadvantage is that I am neither a professional archaeoastronomer nor a historian. ... With the help of modern astro-programs, a person who is not an astronomer can find the positions of the heavenly bodies in the past and, on this basis, test the correctness of the observations found in cuneiform tablets." - Furuli, Persian Chronology (2012 ed.), p.11. So, what's stopping you, Neil?
  15. When he sticks to that, yes, it's a great idea and works well. Unfortunately, he doesn't stick to that. His idea is to make the reader believe that cuneiform writing is open to interpretation - except when it conforms to his conclusions. If it doesn't conform to his conclusions, he changes the reading/meaning of the logograms.
  16. This is simply the position of Ann O Maly and again she has an agenda or bias and her research needs to be tested as with all others. You test it then, Neil. Ever since Furuli's books came out 13 years or so ago, I've wanted you to compare the astronomical data for yourself. You have always refused or made silly excuses so you stay on the same loop-de-loop of non-arguments. It's pretty sloppy, actually. Some of it is sound, and some is confusing, misleading, or made up.
  17. Yup. OK. I learned about it on another very public forum, was shocked, came here to see what people were saying about it (y'all must have heard, surely? but no), found this thread with JTR's last post and Tom's comments about JTR's estrangement from his family ("He made it all public previously," said Tom in answer to some criticism about publicizing this private matter) and Witness's link to JTR's discussion about his being disfellowshipped and reinstated a while back and, as people were already openly talking about JTR's personal life and were wondering about where he'd abruptly disappeared to (all pretty intriguing), I decided to share a link which would shed some light on what had happened to him, thereby making his post a little less mysterious. I thought you guys would like to know, even if it was unpleasant news. At least we know he's not dead. So there it is, and here we are.
  18. See my response to Thinking below. It's not slander if it's true. Tom's point was misdirected as it was based on a faulty assumption, so naturally it didn't reach home. I did detect some scattered debris from a fallen straw man, however. What do you mean? What did I post that was untrue? I think many of us had a soft spot for him - me included. I didn't claim a person should be made to feel shamed if they are innocent so I couldn't have come to the conclusion you say I did. I said, "The shame is in being arrested for that crime," and asked: "Guilty or innocent, do you not think it shameful to be arrested for sexual offenses?" If you were falsely accused, arrested, and charged with a sexual crime, how would you feel? If it were me, I would feel outraged, shocked, and acutely embarrassed (or shamed). Wouldn't you feel similarly?
  19. It seems to me you like to shoot the messenger. Guilty or innocent, do you not think it shameful to be arrested for sexual offenses? 1. Do you not know this site at all? 2. The information I posted was true and already public. I didn't post his mugshot and allegations. I posted an embedded link to the inmate page that only signed-in members of the forum could access. Now look who's speculating. And yet you are and have been participating. Edit to add: I was referring to JTR's cryptic message and sudden absence. I think you may have read too quickly, @Thinking.
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.