TrueLife - History: Science or Fiction # 8

Episode Date: August 16, 2021

One on One Video Call W/George https://tidycal.com/georgepmonty/60-minute-meetingSupport the show:https://www.paypal.me/Truelifepodcast?locale.x=en_US🚨🚨Curious about the future of psychedelics? Imagine if Alan Watts started a secret society with Ram Dass and Hunter S. Thompson… now open the door. Use Promocode TRUELIFE for Get 25% off monthly or 30% off the annual plan For the first yearhttps://www.district216.com/Here we get deep into the weeds of Thucydides. Who was he? Why are his writings so profound? What can we tell about the history of our planet from his writings? One on One Video call W/George https://tidycal.com/georgepmonty/60-minute-meetingSupport the show:https://www.paypal.me/Truelifepodcast?locale.x=en_USCheck out our YouTube:https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLPzfOaFtA1hF8UhnuvOQnTgKcIYPI9Ni9&si=Jgg9ATGwzhzdmjkg

Darkness struck, a gut-punched theft, Sun ripped away, her health bereft. I roar at the void. This ain't just fate, a cosmic scam I spit my hate. The games rigged tight, shadows deal, blood on their hands, I'll never kneel. Yet in the rage, a crack ignites, occulted sparks cut through the nights. The scars my key, hermetic and stark. To see, to rise, I hunt in the dark, fumbling, fear. Fearist through ruins maze lights my war cry born from the blaze.

The poem is Angels with Rifles. The track, I Am Sorrow, I Am Lust by Codex Serafini. Check out the entire song at the end of the cast. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome back to Anatoly Famanko's history fiction or science. We are in depth on chapter 2. two astronomical datings. This is the eighth reading. Let us do a quick recap and we'll dive right back in.

Where we left off at was the astronomical dating. We went through the strange leap of parameter D in the theory of lunar motion. We went through the ancient and middle evil eclipses. And if they are dated correctly, the discovery of an interesting effect. An unprejudiced astronomical dating shifts the dates of the ancient eclipses to the Middle Ages. Let me read up to where we left off, and then we'll begin with the new stuff. Thus continuing the research that began, the author of the book conducted an analysis of other medieval eclipses.

In the interval between 400 and 1,600 AD, it turned out that the transfer effect, affecting the ancient eclipses as described, also applies to those usually dated to 400 through 900 AD. This either means that there are many possible astronomical solutions which make the dating uncertain, or there are just one or two in which case they all fall in the interval between 900 and 1700 AD, only starting with approximately 1,000 AD and not 400 AD. According to Morozov in 544, does the Scala geri general? dating begin to concur with the results of Morozov's method satisfactorily enough, becoming more or less certain by as late a date as 1300 AD.

Let us give a few extremely representative examples, demonstrating how the ancient eclipses and the chronicles that describe them become a great deal younger. The eclipses described by the ancient lucidies. Scaligerian history tries to convince us that Thucydides was born in approximately 460 BC, or 456, 451, somewhere around there, and died around 396 BC. He was a wealthy aristocrat and politician from Athens. During the Peloponnesian War, Thucydides was in command of the Athenian fleet, albeit unsuccessfully. He was subsequently banished from Athens for 20 years.

He wrote his famous tractate during his sojourn in Thracia. Thucydides had received amnesty near the end of the war. He returned to Athens and died shortly afterwards. Historical tradition trusts Thucydides in his descriptions of military events, considering him an eyewitness and a participant. Thucydides himself writes the following. I was writing down the events witnessed by myself as well as what I had heard from others after a meticulous study of each fact as circumstances allowed. I have survived the entire war, understood it, and studied it attentively.

Thucydides is the only source that we have in what concerns the history of the Peloponnesian War. historians write that after Thucydides nobody turned to the history of the Peloponnesian War ever again. Many have, however, thought it would prove flattering for them to be seen as his followers and started their own works where the tractate of Thucydides ended. It is supposed that the work of Thucydides either hadn't had any title at all originally or had been called communal account in Greek, having received the name History of the Peloponnesian War in later translations. The entire historical account of the 27-year-old war between the Ionians and the Dorians,

could Doria mean horde when read in reverse? There's something to think about. The entire historical account of the 27-year war between the Ionians and the Dorians is given by Thucydides, clearly and consequentially, though it remains incomplete. The entire work of Thucydides, whose volume comprises about 800 pages when printed, is written in a brilliant style. Numerous commentators have pointed out the following hallmarks of his book a long time ago. Thucydides demonstrates great iridation and writing experience. The phrase constructions are complex and contain non-trivial grammatical structures.

One sees a clear development of an elegant, realistic concept in the account of historical facts. The author is skeptical about everything supernatural in people's lives. We are being convinced that this work was written in the 5th century when writing materials had still been scarce and expensive. The Mesopotamians use 6th,000. stylus to scribble on clay. The Greeks aren't familiar with paper yet and write on pieces of tree bark or use sticks for writing on wax-covered plaques. The oldest written copy of the history of Thucydides is supposed to be the Codex Lorin Teneas, parchment dated to allegedly the 10th century.

All other old manuscripts belong to the alleged 11th through 12th centuries. Some papyrus fragments of the second book of Thucydides were found in Egypt in the 14th century. A papyrus commentary is also in existence, published as late as 1908. However, the condition of these fragments is very poor indeed. Let us note straight away that the datings of all the oldest manuscripts listed are based on paleographical hypotheses exclusively and therefore don't seem very trustworthy. Any alteration of the chronology changes all of these paleographic datings automatically. There are no calendar dates mentioned in the history of Thucydides and no planetary horoscopes.

However, it contains the description of three eclipses, two of them solar and one lunar. We shall be calling this combination as a triad. Apart from that, the first book contains mentions of solar. solar eclipses, however, those are rather general and vague and cannot serve for any astronomical dating. The descriptions of the triad, however, are quite sufficient for an unambiguous solution. We shall consider it below. The second volume of history contains a rather detailed description of the eclipse. The Russian original refers to the well-known professional Russian translation of Thucydides done by F. G. Mischenko,

the 14th century. Thucydides writes that the summer when the Athenians have chased the Aegeans with their wives and children from Aegean. Thucydides is referring to the first year of the war. The very same summer when the moon was new. Apparently that is the only time when such things can happen. The sun became darkened after midday and became full again, attaining the shape of a crescent and several stars appeared. The Greek text can be seen in figure 2.3. Let us pay attention to the fact that the author appears to understand the mechanism of the eclipse well, mentioning the new moon to be a necessary condition, which is a reference to a long-time

practice of eclipse observation in the epic of Thucydides. The second eclipse of the triad, also solar, happens. in the eighth year of the Peloponnesian War in the beginning of summer. Thucydides writes in the fourth volume that, quote, the winter has ended and with it, the seventh year of this war whose history has been described by Thucydides. In the beginning of the next summer,

with the advent of the new moon, a partial solar eclipse took place, unquote. The Greek text can be seen in figure 2.4. Apparently the summer month mentioned as the month when the Astaville campaign was March, the month of Mars, when military campaigns were usually started, it shall be interesting to verify this statement after the finite solution of the problem is attained.

The third lunar eclipse is described in the seventh volume. The winter was coming to an end, together with the 18th year of the war, whose history has been described by Thucydides. As soon as the next spring began, the Lacedaemon's and their allies invaded Attica in the earliest season, unquote. The events of the summer are related in detail further on. The analysis of the maneuvers described shows that the next sections most probably refer to the end of summer.

This is where Thucydides writes that when everything was ready and the Athenians were preparing to sail away, a lunar eclipse occurred. it had been full moon then. Let us sum up. The following information can be obtained from the text by Thucydides with absolute certainty. All three eclipses were observed from the square fitting into the following geographical coordinates. Longitude between 15 and 30 degrees. Latitude between 30 and 42 degrees. The first eclipse is solar.

The second eclipse is solar. The third eclipse is lunar. The time interval between the first two eclipse equals seven years. The interval between the second eclipse and the third equals 11 years. The first eclipse occurs in the summer. The first solar eclipse is a total eclipse since one can see the stars. That is, its phase value equals 12. Remember, one cannot see any stars during a partial eclipse.

The first solar eclipse occurs after midday local time. The second solar eclipse occurs in the beginning of summer. The lunar eclipse takes place around the end of summer. The second solar eclipse occurred within the temporal vicinity of March. As a matter of fact, the consideration doesn't have to be included in this list. The problem can be formulated as follows, finding the astronomical solution that would satisfy the requirements, 1 through 11. Historians and chronologists. have naturally paid attention to such a precise description of three eclipses in an ancient work,

and tried to date them accordingly. Apparently, the chronologists immediately ran into serious difficulties that haven't been overcome since. We shall proceed to give a more detailed account of the problem of dating, the triad of lucidities, following the well-known astronomical work of Ginzel. in the 16th century the chronological Dionysus Patavius there's our old friend

found the date that fitted the first eclipse 3rd of August 431 BC Johannes Kepler later confirmed the fact that there was indeed an eclipse that day the beginning of the Peloponnesian War was dated the very same year 431

BC Patavius found the dating of the second eclipse as well which was the 21st of March, 424. Beware the aides of March. I just thought that was funny. Which was 21 March 424. Jay Kepler also confirmed the fact that a solar eclipse took place that day.

The date that De Patavius found for the third eclipse was the 27th of August, 413 BC. This is how astronomy appears to have dated the events described by Thucydides. to the 5th century. However, however, a secondary analysis of the astronomical solution offered by Patavius unearthed

serious complications that were repeatedly discussed in astronomical and chronological literature in the 18th to 20th century. These rather heated debates have reoccurred and abated several times. However, modern historians prefer

to remain taciturned in everything that concerns this long and difficult discussion, pretending that the problem does not exist and has never existed. You know, isn't that what academics tend to do all the time? I'm sorry for the quick rant here, but if you'll permit me a minute, it just blows my mind how me, you, leaders, people in positions of authority, we have this tendency to think that by ignoring something, we're not making a decision.

But the fact that you ignore it is making a decision. Just because something is difficult to talk about or we don't know the answer doesn't mean we shouldn't talk about it. I get it, I get it. There's tons of careers, academics, politicians. There's all these people that have made their life, their bones, their discoveries on the back of previous discoveries

that are probably bullshit. So if you rugpole the initial bullshit, all these people's careers fall, all these institutions fall, all these ideas that are built on a shaky foundation, no longer have the ability to hold water. Thank you. Back to the book. The main dating problems that the chronologists ran into

concerned the first eclipse. The fact of the matter is that the eclipse of the 3rd of August in 431 BC proved an annular one. And so it couldn't have been total anywhere on Earth. This was realized after the inclusion of the Scaligerian astronomical dating. The main dating problems that the chronologists ran into concern the first eclipse. The fact of the matter is that the eclipse of August 3rd in 431 BC proved an annual one,

and so it couldn't have been total anywhere in the eclipse. on Earth. This was realized after the inclusion of the Scaligerian astronomical dating of the beginning of the Peloponnesian War into Scalinger's chronological tables. This eclipse is claimed to have been annular by Ginzel's canon as well. The fact that the eclipse in question was an annular one can also be proved by the existing computer software for eclipse calculations. We have verified it using a simple program called. called turboscye that was developed by the Muscovite astronomer A. Volenkin in 1995, which is easy to use and convenient for approximate calculations.

The eclipse of August 3rd that occurred in 431 was in fact an annular eclipse. However, Thucydides tells us explicitly that stars were visible during the eclipse. As we have already stated, one cannot observe the star. during a partial eclipse. Furthermore, it turned out that the phase value of the Patavius eclipse was rather small in Athens, which means Kepler had also made a mistake in his optics telling that the phase value of this eclipse had equaled 12, or in other words, that the eclipse had been total. Such a statement on the part of Kepler is most probably explained by the imperfection of the eclipse calculation methods of his age.

the calculation of the phase of an eclipse is a delicate matter however we should not exclude the possibility that kepler who was involved in many chronological matters had been perfectly aware of the fact that one can only see the stars during a total eclipse and slightly transform the annular eclipse of four thirty one b c into a full eclipse in order to make it satisfy the description given by thucydides and protect the nascent scaligerian chronology from the first time to make it satisfy the description given by thucydides and protect the nascent scaligerian chronology from such an unpleasant dissonance. Kepler had been in constant contact with Scalinger. Imagine that. Who had been his correspondent. Due to the above-mentioned circumstances, astronomers and chronologists

started new calculations of the phase of the eclipse that took place in 431. All sorts of empirical corrections were made in the equations of lunar movement in order to make the phase value of the eclipse as observed from Athens and naming areas approach 12. Okay, scratch that.

Ah, shit. Spill my goddamn coffee everywhere. Jesus Christ. Okay. Due to the above-mentioned circumstances, astronomers and chronologist started new calculations of the phase of the eclipse

that took place in 431. All sorts of empirical corrections were made in the eclipse, equations of lunar movement in order to make the phase value of the eclipse as observed from Athens and neighboring areas approach 12 among the most prominent astronomers of the time that have dealt with the Thucydides triad problem We find such names as Patavius Zek Heise Struyck Kepler

Recoli Hoffman ginsel Johnson Lynn Stockwell and Sefer According to Batavius, the phase value of the eclipse equaled 10 and a quarter. The phase value equal to 11, according to Strut. 1038, according to Zeck, 1072, according to Hoffman, and only 7.9, according to Heist. Ginzel devoted the most attention to the problem of the stars of Thucydides. He came up with a phase value of 10. It became perfectly clear that, apart from having been annual, The eclipse could only have been observed from Athens as partial,

and with a rather small phase value with that. The lunar shadow track on the surface of the earth during the eclipse of August 3rd is shown in figure 2.6 as a dotted line, which signifies the fact that the eclipse was an annular one. No umbral shadow could be observed anywhere. The fact that the phase value of the Athenian eclipse of 431 only equal 10 means that one sixth of the solar disk was open. This is all but bright daytime and one naturally cannot see any stars or planets. Furthermore, as it is made obvious in figure 2.6, the eclipse had only passed Crimea, around 1722 local time.

1754, according to Heist, thus it can hardly be called an afternoon eclipse, as Thucydides explicitly states. It should rather be called an evening eclipse. We have computed the respective positions of the moon and the sun at the moment when the phase value had been maximal for the observation point. The city of Athens and the area around it,

one can see the screenshot in figure 2.7. It is obvious that a large part of the solar disk is open, and neither stars nor planets can possibly be seen. Thus, the eclipse of August 3rd couldn't have been the one described by Thucydides, since conditions 8 and 9 are not satisfied as shown above. Let me reread 8 and 9 for you, so I know what they are and you know what they are. Number 8. The first solar eclipse is a total eclipse since one can see the stars. That is, its phase value equals 12. Remember, one cannot see any stars during a partial eclipse.

Number nine. The first solar eclipse occurs after midday local time. I don't know. It could possibly satisfy nine, right? I mean, after midday is a pretty general term. And technically, evening comes after midday. But I'll leave that up to you guys to look at it. Once you check out the figures 2.6 and 2.7,

maybe you will be able to decide for yourself what you think. Additionally, it might be a good idea for you guys to write down the program called TurboSky to see if you can play with that and check it out and see for yourself if you can find some interesting things. Or if you're an amateur astronomer like myself and you think maybe history is full of shit, then maybe you could play around with this particular program and see what it is you can come up with. Again, that's TurboSky by Voli. Voinkin, V-O-L-Y-N-K-I-N in 95 it came out. So there's that.

This discovery was naturally a most unpleasant one for the Scaligerite chronologists and historians. The astronomer Ginzel went so far as to claim that the low phase value, which equal 10, for Athens, according to the latest calculations, caused a shock and significant doubt about the fact, that stars could be seen as lucidity's claims. Since the stars clearly could not have been visible during the eclipse of 431, Heisen Lin decided to calculate the disposition of bright planets in hope that they might save the situation. However, it turned out that Mars was only three degrees above the horizon.

Venus was high enough about 30 degrees above the horizon. Ginzel makes the cautious remarks in regards to Venus and Mars that these two planets may have been visible. However, this probability is low in what was practically broad daylight. All other hopes have been for Jupiter and Saturn, but it turned out that Jupiter was below the horizon during the eclipse, and therefore invisible. And as for Saturn, although it was above the horizon,

its location was in Libra, a long way off to the south, and according to Ginzel, its visibility was very dubious. We have used the TurboSky Software, write it down, in order to compute the planet locations for the time of the eclipse that occurred on August 3rd. What one sees here is a view of the sky from Athens for the maximal phase of the eclipse at 1457 GMT. It is clear that Venus, Mars, and the much dimmer Mercury are close to the sun and thus rendered invisible by the rays of the partially obscured radiant. Their visibility in broad daylight is extremely improbable.

The gravity of the situation that the proponents of Scalegarian chronology had been well aware of made Johnson suggest a different eclipse, one that occurred on the 30th of March and 433. However, it isn't included in any triad. The nearest triads are 447, 441, and 430 BC. Additionally, 412, 405, and 394 BC. They don't fit for different reasons. The phase value of the eclipse suggested by Johnson also turned out to have equal to mere 7-8, which is even less than the eclipse mistakenly suggested by Patavius.

Stockwell then tried to revise the calculations in order to make the phase maximal. However, the very peak of his ingenuity only allowed him, the result of 11-6. However, Gensel's reaction to Stockwell's calculations were quite skeptical. Seifar put forward a hypothesis that Thucydides may have been referring to the eclipse of January 27th, 430 BC. However, despite the fact that the eclipse is far from fitting the description given by Thucydides, for instance it cannot be included into any triad at all,

a thorough check showed that the eclipse could not have been viable near Athens. The shock that Ginzel mentioned eventually became replaced by a confusion of sorts, which has brought about altogether different considerations that led farther and farther away from astronomy, among those pure demagogu. Zek, for instance, tried to eliminate the problem by his references to the clear skies of Athens and the sharp eyes of the ancients. Apparently our contemporaries would fail to see any stars at all, but the ancients were an altogether different race.

Their vision was a lot keener. They ran faster, too. Hoffman went even further in his suggestion to consider the stars. You know, on the topic of our ancestors being different, there's a phenomenal book by Julian Janes. I'm not sure if you guys are familiar with it, but if you're not familiar with it, it's called The Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind.

And in this book, Julian Janes makes the claim that the Broca's area and Vernica's area, the areas for speech that are currently on the left hemisphere of the brain, were at that time on the right hemisphere of the brain. And that when people in the epic poems written by Homer or the epic battles that we read about in the Iliad or the Odyssey or stories and epic poems of that time, they speak of encountering Athena.

They speak of encountering Apollo. They speak of Zeus. And when they speak of that, it's not that they're seeing a representation of those gods. It's that in their head, they hear a voice. You see, he makes the claim that because the speech centers were on the right hemisphere, people actually heard a voice in their head. Some of you may hear voices in your head.

I know I do. He says that at that time, our mind was evolved differently. before the left hemisphere had fully taken over those particular parts of thinking or before the speech centers migrated to the left-hand side. It's a fascinating read, and you should definitely check it out. Thank you for letting me tell you about that because it's one of my favorite books. Hoffman went even further in his suggestion to consider the stars of Thucydides a mere rhetorical embellishment. This translates as, quote, we trust him in every other respect, but refuse to do so. so in this particular instance, unquote.

Hoffman tries to find linguistic proof for his theory, implying that Thucydides reports the appearance of stars when the sun had already assumed the shape of a crescent. We have asked a phylogist, E.V. Alisgwea, the Department of Phyology, the Department of Philology, excuse me, everybody, MSU 1976. To perform a philological analysis of the text that can be seen in figures 2.3. The linguistic verdict was that the following four events are described by Thucydides.

Number one, the occultation of the sun. Number two, the crescent shape assumed by the sun. Number three, the appearance of stars. Number four, the restoration of the entirety of the solar disk. Thus, the entire eclipse process is described. The darkening of the disk at the beginning, its transformation into a crescent, and the subsequent visibility of the stars. Note, this only happens at the maximum phase of the total eclipse.

And the return of the disc to its res. original form. The consequence of events 1 through 4 is quite natural and is unequivocally defined by the grammatical structure of the phrase. Actually, that was exactly the way that the professional translator quoted above F.G. Ms. Janko translated this fragment from the ancient Greek in the 19th century. The analysis performed by E.V. Alex Vea confirmed the correctness of the classical translation yet again. It wouldn't have been questioned in the first place if it hadn't been for the problem with astronomical dating that arose in this respect.

Therefore, Hoffman's opinion that was also shared by the modern astronomer Robert Newton is really based on the wish to save Scaligerian chronology at any cost, and not the actual translation. We see that the attempt to substitute astronomy for, linguistics does not solve the problem. Despite all this, the erroneous date offered by Patavius was not altered. And any modern history textbook indicates the date that the Peloponnesian War began at 431 BC, albeit for no other reasons than Patavius' opinion. His chronology has been legitimized despite its blatant deviation from the clear and unambiguous description of Thucydides.

The description contained in the original text is detailed and fundamental, which makes all attempts of rectifying the case by playing with the text look ridiculous. Apart from Hoffman's solution, it was proposed to alter the durations of the intervals between the neighboring eclipses. However, even the authors of this proposal refused to elaborate on it. It is hard to doubt that Thucydides was referring to a forefront. eclipse when describing the first one of the triad. In case of the second eclipse, which was partial, he explicitly states that a partial eclipse of the sun occurred when the moon was new. The word partial is used here. Apparently, the author understood the difference between a total eclipse

and a partial eclipse quite well. That is why he emphasized the visibility of the stars in the first case, which is a hallmark of a total eclipse. Let us give a summary. The astronomers failed to find any other fitting astronomical solutions in the interval between 600 and 200 BC. However, no one had thought of broadening the search interval so that the Middle Ages would be included. It is well understood.

They have all been raised on Scaligerian chronology and trusted it by and large. As a result, the erroneous triad of Patavius was kept, despite the fact that this solution contradicts the text of Thucydides. The use of the independent dating method in the culture interval between 900 BC and 1700 AD shows that a precise astronomical solution does exist. Furthermore, the only two solutions that fit exactly. The first one was discovered by Inamorizov. 2nd by A.T. Famenco during a new analysis of the quote, ancient, unquote, and medieval eclipses. The first solution in a Morozov, 1133 AD, August 2nd, total solar. 1140 AD, March 20th, total solar. 1151 AD, August 28th, lunar. The second solution by A.T. Femenko, 1039 AD, August 22nd,

Total Solar, 1046 AD, April 9th, partial solar, 1057 AD, September 15th, lunar. Even Condition 12, stipulating the time around March for the second eclipse is met here. More importantly, the first eclipse is total, the way Thucydides describes it. Thus, once we manage to venture outside Procrustian paradigm of Scaligerian chronology, we found the answer to a question that has been of great interest to astronomers, that of the astronomical descriptions contained in the book of Thucydides. Let me just take a moment to point out the incredibly humorous reference to Procrustius. You guys remember that gentleman that I believe he welcomed in travelers,

but he had like one size bed. and if you didn't fit the size bed as a traveler, he would hook you up to his machine and stretch you out or he'd cut off your legs. Hence the reference to the pro-crustian paradigm of Scaligerian chronology. You've got to give it to these guys, man. These Russians, I've got to give it up

to the Eastern European bloc people. They're tougher. They're smarter. They may not be as good looking. But what are you going to do? What are you going to do? Okay. That's all I got.

Let me get back to the, in all seriousness here. Taking all the facts that we already know into consideration, we should conclude that the solution closest to historical reality is apparently the one suggested by Morozov, the more recent triad of eclipses falling on the middle of the 12th century, namely August 2nd, March 20th, and August 28th. The 11th century solution is most probably two, early. Morozov's 1133, 1140, and 1151 solution is illustrated in figure 2.9. One can see the lunar

shadow tracks on the surface of the earth for total solar eclipses of 1133 and 1140, as well as the zenith visibility point for the lunar eclipses of 1151 AD. We have verified the two solutions listed above with the Turbo Sky Software, let us quote the exact data characterizing the total eclipses of August 22, 1039, and August 2nd, 1133. They are listed as full in the Opelzer-P-P-O-P-L-Z-E-R-O-P-L-Z-E-R-Eclips Canon, Volume 5, pages 77 through 141. The Turbo Sky application identifies them as total eclipses as well. well. We shall give the geographical coordinates of the beginning, middle, and end of the lunar shadow

trajectory on the surface of the earth for the total eclipse of the 2nd of August 1133. So again, these numbers are going to be the geographical coordinates of the beginning, middle, and end of the lunar shadow trajectory for August 2nd, 1133. So if any of you, are so inclined to find the TurboSky application, you'll want to plug in these coordinates. The first line gives you the longitude, and the second, the latitude. So for the first is negative 89,

the second is plus 8, and the third is plus 72. The second line, first number, plus 52, plus 53, plus 9. The umbraul lunar shadow had been at the central point of the trajectory from about 1115 to 1117, according to the turbosky application. For the eclipse dating from August 22, 1039 of the second triad, that would be the 11th century one, the umbral shadow of the moon was at the central point of the trajectory at about 1115 GMT. The coordinates are 7 degrees of eastern longitude and 45 degrees of northern latitude.

In A. Morozov made the following justified remark regarding the full eclipse of August 2nd, 1133, in the 12th century triad. The sun appeared to rise in total occultation on the southern coast of the Hudson Bay. It had been matutinal in England as well, came to Holland at noon to Germany, Austria, the vicinity of the Bosporus Mesopotamia and the Gulf of Arabia, and set in complete darkness in the Indian Ocean. The eclipse was full and its phase maximal. Everything went dark, and one could naturally see the stars in the sky. Thus the 12th century triad discovered by 8th century,

in Amorazov can be seen as follows. The first total eclipse of the sun occurred on August 2nd, 1133 AD, and happened in the following manner. Negative 89 plus 8 plus 72, plus 72, plus 73, plus 9. The central point of the lunar shadow trajectory on the surface of the Earth was passed between about 1115 and 1117 GM2.

See figures 2.9. The second full eclipse happened on March 20th, 1140 as follows. Coordinates. Negative 96, negative 30 plus 48. Second line, plus 20, plus 42, plus 55. The central point of the lunar shadow trajectory on the surface of the earth paused at approximately 1340 GMT. The partial lunar eclipse of August 28, 1151 AD had the maximal phase value of 4,000. at 2325.

The zenith visibility of the moon concurred with the point whose geographical coordinates were 8 degrees of eastern longitude and 7 degrees of southern latitude. This 12th century triad is ideal in all respects. The second eclipse really occurred in March, as one should have expected from the text of Thucydides. The 11th century triad discovered by A.T. Famenco, the first solar eclipse of August 22nd, 1039, appeared in the following way.

Coordinates, negative 82, plus 7, plus 64. Second line, plus 55, plus 25, plus 25, plus 2. The central point of the lunar shadow trajectory on the surface of Earth was paused at about 1115 GMT. The second solar eclipse of April 9, 1046, AD occurred as follows. coordinates plus 22 plus 87 plus 170 second line plus 19 plus 47 plus 50 the central point of the lunar shadow trajectory on the earth surface was paused about 546 GMT the partial lunar eclipse of September 15th 1557 had the maximal phase value of 5 at 1809 GMT the zenith visibility of the moon concurred with the point whose geographical coordinates were 86 degrees of eastern longitude and one

degree of southern latitude. The Thucydides eclipse triad is a very substantial argument proving that the history of the Peloponnesian War by Thucydides could not have been written earlier than the 11th century. It is most improbable that the triad is a fantasy of the author, since in that case a fitting astronomical solution would most probably have been non-existent. It is also hard to consider the eclipses an apocryphal part of the, quote, ancient, unquote, text, since they fit the consecutive and detailed narration incredibly well. N. A. Morozov appears to have been correct in noting that, quote, the book of Thucydides isn't ancient or medieval.

It dates from the 13th century of our era, at least the Renaissance epoch. 2.4. The eclipses described by the ancient Titus Libby. Let us give a few more examples omitting the details this time. We shall just report that the eclipse from the history by Titus Levy, that the modern chronology ascribed to 190 BC or 188 BC also fails to satisfy the description of Titus Levy. The situation with the eclipses of Thucydides is repeated yet again. It turns out that the independent astronomical dating yields just one precise solution in the interval between 900 BC and 1600 AD, and that would be 967 AD, for those of

you who are wondering. The situation with the lunar eclipse that Titus Levy describes in his history is exactly the same. Scaligeria chronologist suggests that Levy is referring to the eclipse of 168 BC. However, analysis shows that the characteristics of this eclipse do not fit the description given by Levy. And everybody knows if it does not fit, you must acquit. it, right? Thank you, Johnny Cochran. The eclipse that he describes could really have happened on one of the following dates, either in 4,15 AD at night between the 4th and 5th of September, in 95A.D. at night between the 4th and 5th of September, or in 1020 AD at night between the 4th and 5th of September. This pattern of false dating goes on and on. A list of such examples includes all the

ancient eclipses that have detailed descriptions. We shall present the whole picture of this effect of moving ancient eclipse dates forward in time below. Transferring the dates of the ancient eclipse's forward in time into the Middle Ages eliminates the enigmatic behavior of the parameter D. The author of the current book proceeded to recalculate the parameter D values using the new dates for ancient eclipses that were produced as a result of the method described above. The discovered effect of moving ancient eclipses forward in time led to the identification of many quote ancient unquote eclipses with the medieval ones. This, in turn, allowed us to expand and alter the list of such medieval eclipses.

New data were obtained from the descriptions considered ancient earlier on and added to the medieval eclipse descriptions. Nevertheless, research has shown that previous values of D basically didn't change over the interval of 500 to 1990 AD. A new curve for D can be seen in figures 2.10. The new curve is qualitatively different from the previous one. In the interval between 1,000 and 1900 AD, parameter D reflects in an even curve on the graph, one that is practically horizontal and fluctuates around a single constant value.

It turns out there have never been any drastic leaps in the parameter, whose value has always equaled the current. Therefore, one doesn't have to invent any mysterious non-gravitational theories. The fluctuation rate of D values, which is rather low in the interval of 1,900 AD, grows significantly when we move from 1,000 AD to the left towards 500 AD. This means that either the scarce astronaut, descriptions that chronologists ascribed to this period are very

nebulous, or, more likely, these chronicles are also misdated, and the events they describe are in need of redating. However, due to the utter vagueness of the remaining astronomical descriptions, they cannot

be used for dating purposes, since they offer too many solutions. The redating of the events that precede the 11th century shall have to be done, by other means and methods, some of which shall be related below. Further on, to the left from 500 AD, we see the zone of no observation data. We know nothing at all about this epoch.

The resulting picture reflects the natural temporal distribution of the observation data, the initial precision of the medieval observations of the 9th through 11th century, centuries was naturally rather low, and then grew together with the precision and perfection of the observation techniques, which resulted in a gradual decrease in the fluctuation of devalues. I think that's a good spot to end this particular session. In summary, we have covered the three eclipses of Thucydides. We have gone over their longitude and their latitude, and we have also

gone into moving the eclipses of the ancient into the future, thus solving some problems of parameter D. And when moving those particular eclipses into the future, we can see that there is no problem with parameter D. I think for me, at least, this is one of the most fundamental shifts that really make you understand the problem with history. For me, and I hope you guys feel the same way, it's fascinating to understand what history really is. When you think about the word history and the etymology of it, it's like, or at least the way the word is, in fact, laid out his story.

It's ridiculous to get into a argument with someone over his story. history because that person is explaining their story, their history, and you know your story or your history. It's wise to know other people's history. It's wise to know that all histories are, in fact, the stories of people who have saw episodes unfold in a certain way. Not necessarily wrong, not necessarily right, but it's a different version. And if you can know that, the more stories of people you know, the better balance you're going to be. And I'm really thankful for everybody spending a few moments with me

and going through this episode with me. And it's really fun for me. I hope you find it engaging and interesting. And we're going to keep knocking them out. This particular episode was a bit tricky. It's a little bit dense with numbers. And I recorded it like three times, and I kept having problems with sound.

So I apologize for the delay. We're going to keep knocking this thing out. Aloha, everybody. Thanks for sticking with me.