Posts by Alleymom

59

I Called the Headquarters About the "Slaughter of Apostates" Quote

by DT in

jw
friends

in case you haven't heard, the november 15, 2011 watchtower, page 5 made this comment.

"today, no servant of jehovah uses physical force against opponents of pureworship.

"vengeance is mine," god says.

Happy Rosh HaShana

by PSacramento in

jw
friends

happy new year 5772 to all our jewish friends !.

time to blow some shofar !!.

l'shanah tovah to all !.

Alleymom

???? ???? ??????! -- edited to say, I see my Hebrew font does not work here, lol! L'shanah tovah u-metuqah! Wishing you a sweet New Year!
Marjorie

55

VAT 4956 Astronomical Observations

by VM44 in

starting a new thread to discuss the astronomical observations recorded in vat 4956..

I've been posting on AnnOMaly's Lunar Threes thread (see my previous post for a link), but I wanted to let you know that I am still willing to help you work through calculating the Lunar Threes on Sky View Cafe.

I am convinced that anyone who is interested could learn how to find the sunrise, sunset, moonrise, and moonset times on SVC.

I would also be happy to show you how to use Parker & Dubberstein's tables to find the Julian dates.

As you know, I have slowed down considerably in recent years due to health problems, so I am not as fast at replying as I used to be. Just didn't want you to think that I had lost interest in helping you work through it step by step.

Of course, maybe by now you have already figured it out or have moved on to other things, which is fine, too.

Marjorie

53

VAT 4956 - Comparison Of The Lunar Three Time Intervals For Years 568/7 BCE and 588/7 BCE

by AnnOMaly in

vat 4956 - comparison of the lunar three time intervals for years 568/7 b.c.e.

the online sky view cafe (svc) and the cartes du ciel* (cdc) astronomy programs have been used for these results.. observer's location: babylon, 32 33' n / 44 24' e.. sr = sunrise; ss = sunset; mr = moonrise; ms = moonset.. .

svc's range of difference between its results and that of the text, when a time interval could be taken, is 1.75 to 6.5. average difference 3.5.. cdc's range of difference between its results and that of the text, when a time interval could be taken, is 0.75 to 8.5. average difference 4. .

Alleymom

Last entry in column 7 of the previous chart was missing the degree symbol. Here is the corrected chart:

53

VAT 4956 - Comparison Of The Lunar Three Time Intervals For Years 568/7 BCE and 588/7 BCE

by AnnOMaly in

vat 4956 - comparison of the lunar three time intervals for years 568/7 b.c.e.

the online sky view cafe (svc) and the cartes du ciel* (cdc) astronomy programs have been used for these results.. observer's location: babylon, 32 33' n / 44 24' e.. sr = sunrise; ss = sunset; mr = moonrise; ms = moonset.. .

svc's range of difference between its results and that of the text, when a time interval could be taken, is 1.75 to 6.5. average difference 3.5.. cdc's range of difference between its results and that of the text, when a time interval could be taken, is 0.75 to 8.5. average difference 4. .

Alleymom

JPL HORIZONS site: http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons.cgi#results

53

VAT 4956 - Comparison Of The Lunar Three Time Intervals For Years 568/7 BCE and 588/7 BCE

by AnnOMaly in

vat 4956 - comparison of the lunar three time intervals for years 568/7 b.c.e.

the online sky view cafe (svc) and the cartes du ciel* (cdc) astronomy programs have been used for these results.. observer's location: babylon, 32 33' n / 44 24' e.. sr = sunrise; ss = sunset; mr = moonrise; ms = moonset.. .

svc's range of difference between its results and that of the text, when a time interval could be taken, is 1.75 to 6.5. average difference 3.5.. cdc's range of difference between its results and that of the text, when a time interval could be taken, is 0.75 to 8.5. average difference 4. .

Alleymom

AnnOMaly, Post 2083:

The WT writer believes the lunar positions relative to other celestial bodies (meaning stars/constellations, obviously, as the moon's (timed) positions relative to the sun have been dismissed) are more reliable for dating purposes. Stephenson and Willis seem to be saying the opposite - that Lunar Threes don't repeat cyclically and therefore tend to be distinctive to a certain year.

I've added highlighting to your post 2083 and to my post 1262 (quoting post 1159) above, for people who are just skimming.

And I will repeat:

The Lunar Three readings, by themselves, are enough to disqualify 588/587 BCE as a possible date for VAT 4956. Some of the Lunar Three intervals --- the sunrise to moonset (SR - MS) intervals ---- are impossible because the moon set BEFORE the sunrise.

Furthermore, if it is true, as many have suggested, that the Writing Dept. monitors this board, then they have known this since Nov. 2007. At the very least, they knew it when they added footnote 18a in between footnotes 18 and 19. Footnote 18a is a reference to the Stephenson/Willis article.

Just one more example of the WTS's misuse of scholarly sources.

53

VAT 4956 - Comparison Of The Lunar Three Time Intervals For Years 568/7 BCE and 588/7 BCE

by AnnOMaly in

vat 4956 - comparison of the lunar three time intervals for years 568/7 b.c.e.

the online sky view cafe (svc) and the cartes du ciel* (cdc) astronomy programs have been used for these results.. observer's location: babylon, 32 33' n / 44 24' e.. sr = sunrise; ss = sunset; mr = moonrise; ms = moonset.. .

svc's range of difference between its results and that of the text, when a time interval could be taken, is 1.75 to 6.5. average difference 3.5.. cdc's range of difference between its results and that of the text, when a time interval could be taken, is 0.75 to 8.5. average difference 4. .

Alleymom

Alleymom	Re: WT Nov. 1, 2011 (public) - When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed - Part 2 posted 24 days ago (9/2/2011)
Post 1262 of 1372 Since 10/19/2001	From my post 1159, November 2007 -- The data in astronomical diary VAT 4956 was analyzed and verified by Dr. Richard Stephenson and Dr. David M. Willis. Their paper on VAT 4956 was presented at a conference on "Astronomy and Mathematics in the Ancient Near East," held in June 2001 at the British Museum. The research papers from the conference were published in 2002 in a book edited by Dr. John Steele, an archeo-astronomer in the Department of Physics at Durham University. The title of the book is Under One Sky: Astronomy and Mathematics in the Ancient Near East (Band 297 in the series Alter Orient und Altes Testament), edited by John M. Steele and Annette Imahusen, published in 2002 by Ugarit-Verlag, Munster. The name of the article is "The Earliest Datable Observation of the Aurora Borealis," by Dr. Richard Stephenson and Dr. David M. Willis, pp. 421-428. They discussed VAT 4956 again in an article with the same title, published in December 2004 in the journal Astronomy and Geophysics, volume 45, issue 6, pages 6.15 - 6.17: "The Earliest Datable Observation of the Aurora Borealis." I have read (and have copies of) both articles. The authors "confidently" confirm the accepted date of 568/567 BCE for the astronomical data found in VAT 4956. They especially emphasize that the results of the "lunar threes" observations in VAT 4956 are not observations that would have been repeated at Metonic-cycle intervals. They give a very clear explanation of the "lunar threes" --- briefly, these were three time-intervals which were tracked and recorded each month: 1) the interval from sunset to moonset (on the first of the month); 2) sunrise to moonset (middle of the month); moonrise to sunrise (near the end of the month) --- and they explain that these usually enable one to arrive at the exact date by comparing the observed time-intervals with computer calculations. The authors conclude that "the various lunar threes in the text are quite in keeping with a date for the tablet of 568-567 B.C. In addition, reference to Table 1 reveals that even at this early date, timing errors were typically of the order of 1[degree] - no mean achievement." p. 424

Re: WT Nov. 1, 2011 (public) - When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed - Part 2 posted 24 days ago (9/2/2011)

Post 1262 of 1372
Since 10/19/2001

From my post 1159, November 2007 --

The data in astronomical diary VAT 4956 was analyzed and verified by Dr. Richard Stephenson and Dr. David M. Willis. Their paper on VAT 4956 was presented at a conference on "Astronomy and Mathematics in the Ancient Near East," held in June 2001 at the British Museum. The research papers from the conference were published in 2002 in a book edited by Dr. John Steele, an archeo-astronomer in the Department of Physics at Durham University.
The title of the book is Under One Sky: Astronomy and Mathematics in the Ancient Near East (Band 297 in the series Alter Orient und Altes Testament), edited by John M. Steele and Annette Imahusen, published in 2002 by Ugarit-Verlag, Munster. The name of the article is "The Earliest Datable Observation of the Aurora Borealis," by Dr. Richard Stephenson and Dr. David M. Willis, pp. 421-428.
They discussed VAT 4956 again in an article with the same title, published in December 2004 in the journal Astronomy and Geophysics, volume 45, issue 6, pages 6.15 - 6.17: "The Earliest Datable Observation of the Aurora Borealis."
I have read (and have copies of) both articles.
The authors "confidently" confirm the accepted date of 568/567 BCE for the astronomical data found in VAT 4956.
They especially emphasize that the results of the "lunar threes" observations in VAT 4956 are not observations that would have been repeated at Metonic-cycle intervals. They give a very clear explanation of the "lunar threes" --- briefly, these were three time-intervals which were tracked and recorded each month: 1) the interval from sunset to moonset (on the first of the month); 2) sunrise to moonset (middle of the month); moonrise to sunrise (near the end of the month) --- and they explain that these usually enable one to arrive at the exact date by comparing the observed time-intervals with computer calculations. The authors conclude that "the various lunar threes in the text are quite in keeping with a date for the tablet of 568-567 B.C. In addition, reference to Table 1 reveals that even at this early date, timing errors were typically of the order of 1[degree] - no mean achievement." p. 424

53

VAT 4956 - Comparison Of The Lunar Three Time Intervals For Years 568/7 BCE and 588/7 BCE

by AnnOMaly in

vat 4956 - comparison of the lunar three time intervals for years 568/7 b.c.e.

the online sky view cafe (svc) and the cartes du ciel* (cdc) astronomy programs have been used for these results.. observer's location: babylon, 32 33' n / 44 24' e.. sr = sunrise; ss = sunset; mr = moonrise; ms = moonset.. .

svc's range of difference between its results and that of the text, when a time interval could be taken, is 1.75 to 6.5. average difference 3.5.. cdc's range of difference between its results and that of the text, when a time interval could be taken, is 0.75 to 8.5. average difference 4. .

Alleymom

AnnOMaly, Post 2081: As has been demonstrated - thus far having used 4 different astronomical programs - these time measurements only become 'unreliable' when they are applied to the wrong year. When they are applied to the correct year, the measurements fit - they are reliable. This is why "scholars have tied [them] to calendar dates" like 568/7 B.C.E. for VAT 4956! This is also why the researcher(s) behind the Watchtower article rejects them!

If you add in my results from JPL, we now have 5 different astronomical programs which have been used to check the Lunar Three intervals on VAT 4956. The Lunar Threes have also been checked by scholars F. Richard Stephenson, David M. Willis, and Hermann Hunger.

The results confirm that the Lunar Three intervals on VAT 4956 fit the accepted year of 568/567 BCE, but do not fit 588/587 BCE.

In fact, we have demonstrated conclusively that several of the Lunar Three intervals are IMPOSSIBLE for the year 588/587 BCE. Why are they impossible? Because the moon set BEFORE sunrise and therefore the interval SR - MS (sunrise to moonset) is meaningless.

53

VAT 4956 - Comparison Of The Lunar Three Time Intervals For Years 568/7 BCE and 588/7 BCE

by AnnOMaly in

vat 4956 - comparison of the lunar three time intervals for years 568/7 b.c.e.

the online sky view cafe (svc) and the cartes du ciel* (cdc) astronomy programs have been used for these results.. observer's location: babylon, 32 33' n / 44 24' e.. sr = sunrise; ss = sunset; mr = moonrise; ms = moonset.. .

svc's range of difference between its results and that of the text, when a time interval could be taken, is 1.75 to 6.5. average difference 3.5.. cdc's range of difference between its results and that of the text, when a time interval could be taken, is 0.75 to 8.5. average difference 4. .

Alleymom

AnnOMaly --

Thanks for the Sky Map Pro and Alcyone Ephemeris charts!

I have the results from the JPL [Jet Propulsion Laboratory] HORIZONS EPHEMERIDES for all three years. They are entirely consistent with the results from other software programs previously posted on this thread.

I will stick them into chart form and post them a little later.

Here is the address for the JPL HORIZONS site, along with the settings I used:

http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons.cgi#results

Ephemeris Type [change] :	OBSERVER
Target Body [change] :	Sun [Sol] [10]
Observer Location [change] :	user defined ( 44°24'00.0''E, 32°33'00.0''N )
Time Span [change] :	Start=588 BC-04-15 UT+3, Stop=587 BC-05-01, Step=1m
Table Settings [change] :	QUANTITIES=1; RTS flag=TVH
Display/Output [change] :	default (formatted HTML)

Ephemeris Type [change] :	OBSERVER
Target Body [change] :	Moon [Luna] [301]
Observer Location [change] :	user defined ( 44°24'00.0''E, 32°33'00.0''N )
Time Span [change] :	Start=568 BC-01-01 UT+3, Stop=567 BC-07-30, Step=1m
Table Settings [change] :	QUANTITIES=1; RTS flag=TVH
Display/Output [change] :	default (formatted HTML)

Note: RTS is rise, transit, set.

RTS MARKERS (TVH). Rise and set are with respect to the reference ellipsoid true visual horizon defined by the elevation cut-off angle. Horizon dip and yellow-light refraction (Earth only) are considered. Accuracy is < or = to twice the requested search step-size.

Since I set step-size to 1 minute, the accuracy is less than or equal to 2 minutes.

53

VAT 4956 - Comparison Of The Lunar Three Time Intervals For Years 568/7 BCE and 588/7 BCE

by AnnOMaly in

vat 4956 - comparison of the lunar three time intervals for years 568/7 b.c.e.

the online sky view cafe (svc) and the cartes du ciel* (cdc) astronomy programs have been used for these results.. observer's location: babylon, 32 33' n / 44 24' e.. sr = sunrise; ss = sunset; mr = moonrise; ms = moonset.. .

svc's range of difference between its results and that of the text, when a time interval could be taken, is 1.75 to 6.5. average difference 3.5.. cdc's range of difference between its results and that of the text, when a time interval could be taken, is 0.75 to 8.5. average difference 4. .

Alleymom

Doug and AnnOMaly --

You have probably seen this already, but for those who have not:

In the introduction to volume 1 of ADT (Sachs and Hunger, Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts, 1988, ISBN 3-7001-1227-0), Sachs has a section on Time Measurement (p. 16 of the Introduction.)

He says that "From the diaries it is not apparent how time intervals were measured. The general assumption is that waterclocks were used. [footnote ref. to A. Aaboe, Centaurus 24 24]. These instruments are attested in texts ( see the dictionaries s.v. dibdibbu, maltaktu) but little is known about their construction. [Footnote ref to O. Neugebauer, Isis 37 37ff.] "

"Another candidate for time measurement is the sundial ... In any case sundials, which work only during daytime, would have been of very limited usefulness for the purposes of the diaries."

"It is of course also possible to measure time at night by means of fixed stars. Lists of ziqpu stars ... could be used for exactly this purpose. Unfortunately most time intervals recorded in the diaries, especially those concerning the moon, fall around sunrise or sunset when only few stars are visible. On the other hand, the inaccuracy of time measurement seems to have been of little importance for the development of Babylonian astronomy. [footnote ref. to O. Neugebauer, A History of Ancient Mathematical Astronomy.1975, page 545.]