Gobekli tepi, Comet Impact, and the Younger Dryas

[Tiompan]

[quote="E.P. Grondine"

good morning. Tiompan.


I responded to your points 1-6 earlier, and you can read those responses earlier in this thread.[/quote]

As I pointed out ,you didn't , you evaded them .
Further there were 6 ,but it was one example of many , mentioned because of the number of errors in one small sentence .
Here are points 2-5 .
2) The putative alignments are to the North , and that is not where the comet can be observed .
3) The comet was only discovered in 1900 and cannot be seen with the naked eye, so not only was the “alignment “in the wrong direction it wouldn’t have been seen .
4) You don’t get “alignments “ to comets in prehistoric buildings .
5) You confused a comet with meteors , the Draconids are spawned from the comet but are seen in the north not the south.
You also evavded the expansion from an earlier post e.g. " Look at errors 2, and 3 which have nothing to do with how the Comet may have looked like in the past , what ever it may looked like you were looking in the wrong direction . An earlier post had went into more detail about errors “where you get it demonstrably wrong is that you thought that the Comet was observed in the North ,probably because it spawned the meteors but the comet is observed in the south not the north . This fundamental error is exacerbated by the belief that there are astronomical alignments at GT and or KT and their indication is to north , two highly contentious points . The quote where you make that particular fundamental error is “ the alignments were to Comet Giacobini Zimmer. “
Respond to the content .But as ever breath will not be held .

[Tiompan]

[quote="E.P. Grondine"]
“ the central pillars of the structures likely aligned to Comet Giacobini Zinner, as shown by the stone plaque. “

Your interpretation of the stone plaque is a typical over interpretation , it could be over interpreted by fantasists to suit many differing agendas , but what makes the comment above garbage is what you were told years ago and continually avoid .
“The builders of GT couldn't possibly have aligned anything to it , as they would never have seen it . It was only discovered in 1900 , at magnitude 10 i.e it would have needed binoculars or a telescope to have been seen .Which ever way you consider an alignment towards Comet Giacobini Zinner is extreme fantasy that even the nuttiest of the alt crowd might see as being unlikely .
Next up is the Draconids . You'll get that wrong too . “

BTW When I pointed out your error about the spelling of Zimmer /Zinner for the first time , you didn't make any excuse about typos , but thanked me for pointing it out .
e.g.
Tiompan wrote:One attempt at avoiding the issues was introduce comets and we got the ignorant and hilarious "the alignments were to Comet Giacobini Zimmer. "
It’s actually Giacobini Zinner .The builders of GT couldn't possibly have aligned anything to it, as they would never have seen it .

[quote="E.P. Grondine"] “Thanks for catching that. I am pretty tired right now. “
Spelling mistakes and typos are not worth bothering about but it was yet another error in a very small number of words and an interest contrast in responses over the period .

[E.P. Grondine]

tiompan -

Why you continue to insist that both Giacobini Zinner and the Draonids looked the same then as today is beyond my understanding,
except as an example of he psychological mechanism of denial.

[Tiompan]

E.P.
You are continuing with the same behaviour .
Why can't you find a quote that I have made that is in error ? It's very simple . All you have to do is find the a quote then show where it is wrong . I do it all the time with your nonsense .
Why do you evade the problems that I highlighted from your quote ?
As ever , breath will not be held .

[E.P. Grondine]

good morning, tiompan -

The thought of you holding your breath waiting for me to agree with you alarms me.
Thus, I hope to produce a sigh of exasperation:
I still can not figure out why the builders put so much effort into details
which would be hidden immediately.

Again, why you think Comet Giacobnini Zinner an the Draonids appeared the same way then as they do know is beyond me.
As is your refusal to admit that maojr cometary impacts occurred at the start of the Holocene.
Neither Collins nor Hancock is that stupid, and thus your own behavior in this regard is very remarkable.

[Tiompan]

EP ,
I didn't hold my breath due to my experience of your inability to respond to your errors ,which have been highlighted and based on quoted comments from yourself .
It's tiresome for me and for others who have to reads these posts . You continually evade the highlighted problems and fail to provide any quotes of mine that you can falsify .
There is much that you can't figure out from the present , maybe you should concentrate on that before fantasising about the intentions of the builders of GT .
Stop wasting space and time . Provide quotes and point out the errors in them , if you can .It's very simple .
Breath still not being held .

[E.P. Grondine]

Tiompan -

I have made errors in the past, and I retain my right to make errors both now and in the future.
But unlike many people I have had the misfortune to run into,
when I recognize an error I admit to it and do my best to correct it.

For example, i find your insistent denial of the Holocene Start Impact Events irksome.

[Tiompan]

EP ,
Sadly you haven't learnt from your highlihgted errors posted here and failed to correct them , never mind admit to them .
The fact that it takes so long to sink in is irksome for anyone reading the posts .

Again ,if there is something that I have said that you don't agree with , simply quote it and start a discussion .

[E.P. Grondine]

Okay, tiompan, since you apparently missed my earlier replies, here they are is again:

1) "m" is next to "n" on the keyboard., and I am typing these with one hand for the most part.

2,3,4,5)

Your own ignorance of cometary evolution is appalling, tiompan.
Why the hell do you think that Giacobini Zinner looked the same way it does now as it did some 13,000 years ago?
I am not confusing comets with meteors.
What the alignments may have been, and to what, is the issue under discussion and analysis.

Fletcher and I managed to get together for about 30 minutes this last weekend.
He is reluctant to work on Gobekli Tepe,
because site maps aligned to magnetic north are useless.
For that matter, due to the Earth's wobble,
site maps aligned to the current celestial north will be useless later on.

Now do you want to make yourself useful, tiompan,
or do you just want to bloviate?

The issue now at hand is the rate of cometary injection into the inner solar system,
not whether there were cometary impacts at the start of the Holocene,
or whether they led to bizarre magical practices.
Why you think the ancient Europeans were more rational than ancient Native Americans is beyond me.
Do you think Native American sites are somehow less important than European ones?
Usually people believe what they want to believe until reality intrudes.

Postby E.P. Grondine » Fri Jun 09, 2017 7:09 am
Tiompan -

Fletcher took a brief look at a Gobekli Tepe site map and the plaques.

Based on that brief look, and our understanding of Native American astronomies, general background skills, etc.
We believe that the impactor involved in the Holocene Start Impact Events,
and thus the comet active at the time of the construction of Gobekli Tepe,
was Comet Giacobini Zinner.

Thus mankind has been threatened by two comets in the recent past, Comet Giacobini Zinner and Comet Encke.
Based on this sample of one from Earth, Jupiter observations, and other data,
we believe the threat posed by the cometary impact hazard is far far far greater
than NASA's recent operational estimates.

Factoring out precession and nutation,
and gravitational perturbation,
the central pillars of the structures likely aligned to Comet Giacobini Zinner, as shown by the stone plaque.
The various shifts in its orbit over time likely led to the burials and reconstructions of the structures.
Fletcher wants me to emphasize to you that occupation of the site that has been exposed so far was likely over 2,000 years.

This is all a first glance,
but it is our current working estimate.

Real detailed work would require a site visit,
which Fletcher and myself could undertake providing our full expenses were covered in advance,
i.. air fare, ground transportation, food, and lodging,
along with a healthy per diem.

We currently have plenty to do right here.

Now just to make sure you don't miss these replies this time,
and to avoid further typing,
I will also point out to you that whatever their mistakes, neither Collins nor Hancock is stupid enough to mistake
a major recent impact event for a "fantasy":

"There was also the all important inclusion of the first component of the thread ,i.e. GT, and how it has become the latest in a long line of
of ancient sites that have been used by the alt. crowd to "explain " some fantasy .

Tiompan

Posts: 732
Joined: Tue May 11, 2010 5:13 am"

[Tiompan]

EP your earlier posts were read but they failed with the one possible exception , the typo , at addressing or understanding your errors.
Yet again you have also failed to point out any errors I have made .

It's hardly surprising that it takes multiple mentions of the simplest points before they sink in . The more in depth highlights from a couple of years ago which were also evaded would clearly need even greater repetition before they were understood and any sensible response expected .
Here are yet again the problems with the very short phrase "the alignments were to Comet Giacobini Zimmer. " The first and more minor problem is related to your belief in the “alignments”. We don't that they were meant to be aligned to anything . They are pairs of pillars as found in countless monuments the world over , they could have multiple explanations from the most mundane to the more esoteric ,beyond the most fevered imagination of the greatest fantasists .
Here is what was written a couple of years ago that you also failed to respond to meaningfully , or more than likely , understand .”The first problem is that there is an assumption that there is an alignment ,that is by no means certain .Assuming that there was some possibility of an intentional astronomical alignment then there is a huge choice of possibilities . Standing between the pillars is hardly providing a degree of accuracy , where does the observer stand ? behind them , between them ? ,which way does she look , north or south ? in archaeoastronomical terms there is no indication , why not across the tops of the pillars , or along the actual orientation of an individual pillar ? All will provide “alignments but how can we know that there was any intention .
The alignments that are accepted in archaeoastronomy are obvious with clear indications , in one of the rare cases where the alignment is between the pillars e.g. Stonehenge there are multiple pillars that are aligned creating a narrow tunnel/sighting line effect ,(unlike the single widely spaced pairs at GT ) the observing point is obvious (the centre of the monument) and there is a linear monument connected to the monument on the same alignment (the Avenue ) .Further ,the alignment is to an astronomical event that is found in various /cosmologies throughout the world i.e a solstice . Despite what Collins claims , alignments in prehistoric monuments certainly facing north i.e not part of orientation that could also be described as southerly and facing a part of the sky where the sun or moon doesn’t rise or set ,are eschewed in the vast majority of alignments and monuments ,and those that do face north are rarely facing Deneb ,if there is an astro alignment due to the date of build and precession , it would be Thuban .

That is some of the problems concerning your mention of what you believe to be “alignments ".

There are other errors in that very short phrase but the most obvious is that you believe “Comet Giacobini Zimmer “ (sic) was being aligned to by the builders of GT when it was was only discovered in 1900 and cannot be seen with the naked eye.

Please don't waste more time and space . Simply address/refute the problems if you can ,although no breath will be held .

[circumspice]

If I may?

E.P.!

For the love of little green apples... why won't you admit that you are WRONG???

If Comet Giacobini Zinner is NOT VISIBLE TO THE NAKED EYE... how could it possibly be an alignment at Gobekli Tepi? How???

Just admit that you're wrong, mistaken or whatever then grovel & kowtow to tiompan so he will stop beating that poor dead horse!!!

Put the rest of us out of our misery or he will continue flogging that dead horse til one of you dies...

Bite the bullet E.P., man up & take your medicine, bitter pill though it may be...

Ahem... Thank you.

[shawomet]

The brightness of comets can be variable. However, granted that that is the case, how exactly do we know Comet Giacobini-Zinner was bright enough to be noted at the time of GT's construction? If one assumes it was much brighter, what is it that supports that assumption? Is there anyway to actually establish an objective answer to how bright it was going back through time?

Here is something about the brightness magnitude scale for celestial objects for comparison purposes:

http://www.cometwatch.co.uk/comet-info/ ... ude-scale/

And regarding the comet in question:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/21P/Gia ... 0%93Zinner

"During its apparitions, Giacobini–Zinner can reach about the 8th magnitude, but in 1946 it underwent a series of outbursts that made it as bright as 5th magnitude. It is the parent body of the Giacobinids meteor shower (also known as the Draconids). The comet currently has an Earth-MOID of 0.035 AU (5,200,000 km; 3,300,000 mi).[1]"

If one looks at the brightness magnitude scale, a magnitude of 5 is not very bright at all. Visible to the naked eye I guess, but how can we really say what its brightness was in the distant past? A magnitude of 6.5 is required to be visible to the naked eye....

[shawomet]

Further technical data on Comet Giacobini-Zinner. You can click on the dates given, for June 2017, to see its position against the night sky. Note that at present, its brightness magnitude is far too dim to permit visibility to the naked eye. Looking at the light curve graph, it looks like it might be just barely outside eyeball visibility in late 2018...

https://theskylive.com/21p-info

[Tiompan]

There are other errors in that very short phrase but the most obvious is that “Comet Giacobini Zimmer “ (sic) was only discovered in 1900 and cannot be seen with the naked eye.

That very simple point destroying the fantasy was made two years ago it didn't sink in then , it's wilful ignorance , the reality in “Usually people believe what they want to believe until reality intrudes.” hasn't intruded yet .

Bearing in mind it was a very short comment other major problems in the fantasy have also been ignored /not understood/ , e.g. the belief that the pillars are unquestionably accepted as being intentionally “aligned “ by the builders towards some event in the heavens, and all the concomitant problems associated with that belief even if it was accepted .

[E.P. Grondine]

If I may?

E.P.!

For the love of little green apples... why won't you admit that you are WRONG???

If Comet Giacobini Zinner is NOT VISIBLE TO THE NAKED EYE... how could it possibly be an alignment at Gobekli Tepi? How???

Just admit that you're wrong, mistaken or whatever then grovel & kowtow to tiompan so he will stop beating that poor dead horse!!!

Put the rest of us out of our misery or he will continue flogging that dead horse til one of you dies...

Bite the bullet E.P., man up & take your medicine, bitter pill though it may be...

Ahem... Thank you.

spice,
How Comet Giacobinni Zinner appears today does not mean it appeared that way in the past.
The way the Dracoids appear today does not mean they appeared that way in the past.