Halley's Comet in the TYCHOS

Simon Shack's (Tycho Brahe-inspired) geoaxial binary system. Discuss the book and website for the most accurate configuration of our solar system ever devised - which soundly puts to rest the geometrically impossible Copernican-Keplerian model.
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7341
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Halley's Comet in the TYCHOS

Unread post by simonshack »

*

HALLEY'S COMET - AND THE HISTORY REVISIONISTS

Whether history revisionism is your cup of tea or not, one must admit that prominent figures in that field - such as Anatoly Fomenko and Gleb Nosovskiy (and their precursor and 'inspirator', Nikolai Morozov) - are not exactly the sort of "crackpot amateur conspiracy theorists typing away in their mothers' basements". They all were / and are very eminent Russian intellectuals who spent many years reviewing a humongous amount of historical documentation (often involving astronomical data) comparing and cross-analyzing innumerable accounts of Greek, Roman, Babylonian, Russian tradition etc. Their conclusions thereof are, of course, famously controversial: in a nutshell (and to very roughly summarize), they submit that ancient history is not as ancient as we have been told - and that many events that supposedly took place in 'antiquity' (2000 years ago or so) are grossly mis-dated and actually occurred about 1000 years later, i.e. during the advent of the so-called "middle ages".

That's right, according to Fomenko and Nosovskiy, a lot of "manuscripted fakery", distortions and 'duplications' of historical narratives - including biblical / religious scriptures - has been going on in our relatively recent past. Now, let me clarify my position as to their many claims (which I admittedly haven't spent sufficient time looking into): I will suspend my judgment for now as to whether they are legit, dubious - or plain rubbish. However, even if the latter is the case (and be some kind of ploy to "muddy the waters" of history), I still wouldn't join the ranks of those academics who make a wholesale dismissal of their entire body of research - were it only because of its impressive breadth and scope. And yes, I'm fully aware that what follows may expose me to critique (for "cherry-picking" their work), but so be it.

Here's a fairly balanced critique of Fomenko's - and his 'predecessor' Morozov's - historical revisionism: https://unnameable.media/2021/05/14/fom ... hronology/

As I currently take their work with several grains of salt I am nonetheless - for instance - intrigued by their take on the birth of the fellow known as "Jesus Christ". According to Fomenko and Nosovskiy (again, roughly summarizing), the identity of the entity known as "Jesus" has been attached, in various historical manuscripts, to a number of prominent individuals (Kings, Emperors, Popes and whatnot). Short from listing here those various apochryphal / or duplicated "Jesuses" suggested by Fomenko and Nosovskiy, I will just mention the place and date that they propose that the 'original' Jesus was born. I apologize for linking to Wikipedia - but it contains this short sentence that briefly and conveniently outlines the issue at hand:

"He [Fomenko] claims that the historical Jesus was born in Cape Fiolent, Crimea, on December 25, 1152 A.D."
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_chronology_(Fomenko)

This made me jump in my chair! Why? Well, because - as we shall see - according to my TYCHOS model (and the Tychosium simulator - Halley's comet made a visit to our Solar System precisely in the year 1152 - and passed right above (and behind) the Sun on December 25, 1152 !

As it is, I had already found in the American Journal of Science (Vol III, May 1847) this mention of the passage of Halley's comet in the year 1152:

"In a communication made July, 1846, Laugier announces as a result of further investigations among Biot's extracts, the discovery of three earlier returns of this comet [Halley's], viz: A.D. 1152, perihelion passage, Sept. 23, (...)"

Image
Source: https://www.google.it/books/edition/Ame ... frontcover

(NOTE: The modern official tables of Halley's comet have the comet passing in 1145 !)

Here's where Halley's was located in our Solar System on December 25, 1152 - according to the Tychosium simulator:

Image

Please note that Fomenko and Nosovskiy never mention that Halley's comet would have been transiting around our Solar System in the year 1152. Only the Tychosium simulator "says so"(along with Laugier and Biot, the two eminent French astronomers who notoriously specialized in the study of comet Halley).

So was Halley's comet (of December 25, 1152 AD) the legendary "Star of Betlehem"? Well, rest assured that I really don't have the pretention to assert that it was. After all, if it passed just above and 'behind' the Sun, it should probably have been swamped in its glare. However, since some exceptionally bright comets (and their long tails) have been reported to be visible even in bright daylight, it is not beyond plausibility that Halley's tail (notoriously long and impressive, back in the days) was observed on December 25, 1152 -as illustrated in my below screenshot from the Tychosium simulator.

In any case, you may agree that the fact that the Tychosium has Halley's passing just above the Sun - and at the Sun's same longitude (i.e. circa 18h40min of RA - on December 25, 1152) - is a rather fascinating 'coincidence'. Whoever witnessed such a spectacle in the year 1152 must have been aghast, thinking that "Jesus must have landed on Earth"...

Image

Speaking about "fascinating coincidences' (in connection with the TYCHOS model), what follows should make your jaw drop on the floor...

*****************************************************************************************************************


MOROZOV'S DATING OF THE "APOCALYPSE" (John: Book of Revelations)


The most compelling historical revision submitted by the Russian astronomer Nikolai Morozov is to be found in his book "The Revelation in Storm and Thunder. History of the Apocalypses origin" (1907) . The book's German version is titled "The Revelation to John - An astronomic historical Investigation").

In his book Morozov makes the case that the Book of Revelation is describing the astronomical constellation over the island of Patmos on Sunday, September 30, 395. Morozov believed that "John the Revelator" was able to calculate the Saros eclipse cycle and was able to observe and predict celestial phenomena which would have occurred in the region of the skies of Patmos. In his book, the Russian astronomer determines with exacting precision that what "John the Revelator" refers to (in his colorful, metaphorical and only apparently "cryptic" description of celestial events) had to have occurred on September 30, 395 - just as a solar eclipse occurred.

For a concise overview of just how Morozov reached his conclusions, this Wikipedia page is a perfect place to start (and is all you may need to read in order to appreciate the Tychos-related 'Revelation' I am making here) : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Revel ... nd_Thunder

Morozov was initially - and unsurprisingly - harshly criticized by various theologists and academics, but over time, astronomers have verified his claims and have had to conclude that they are, so-to-speak, rock-solid and virtually incontrovertible. As justly pointed out in the above-linked Wikipedia page:

"The description within the Book of Revelation matches exactly the Constellation for the Julian date 30-9-395". (...) "Sun, Moon and the 3 outer and 2 inner planets will produce 3.732.480 combinations within the 12 signs of the zodiac (125 × 5 × 3). Therefore, an accidental match is quite unlikely."

There can therefore be little doubt that Morozov's thesis was perfectly correct - and statistically undisprovable from an astronomical perspective. However, as lamented by one of his fiercest critics, there was still "something missing" with regards to the biblical text in the Book of Revelations"... In a paper titled "Pseudoscience and Revelation", N.T. Bobrovnikoff points out that the famous biblical text mentions another "200,000,000 horsemen .... and countless locusts that looked like horses". Bobrovnikoff then scoffingly asks whether there was, in addition to the solar eclipse (and the quite remarkable planetary alignments of that day - September 30, 395), "also a meteoric shower to boot ("and the stars of Heaven fell onto Earth")? In other words, Bobrovnikoff attacks Morozov for failing to mention these seemingly spectacular other celestial phenomena observed on that day.

Image

Source: "Pseudoscience and Revelation" - by N.T. Bobrovnikoff

Now, you may ask, what could these other striking celestial objects have been? Well, as we go to the Tychosium simulator, we find that none other than comet Halley was hurtling through our skies on that very day! We may only imagine (in awe) what a formidable spectacle played out in our skies on September 30, 395 - what with a solar eclipse occurring just while Mars was almost precisely in opposition (and closest to Earth) - and while Mercury, Venus, Jupiter and Saturn were all roughly located in the same part of the sky where Halley's comet was "releasing its 200,000,000 horsemen"!!! Add to this the frightful fact (shown by the Tychosium) that Halley's, as it approached in July 395 would have emerged from right behind Mars - after nearly colliding with the red planet (which the ancients called the "God of War")! Earthly observers who witnessed this fiery cosmic spectacle (including a solar eclipse) must have thought that the "Apocalypse" was truly knocking at the doors!

Image

In case you are wondering (and as you may readily verify for yourself): Yes - the celestial locations of ALL the planets (and our Moon) as depicted in the Tychosium simulator - are in excellent agreement with Morozov's calculations - and with official planetariums / and ephemerides. Only Halley's comet doesn't agree with the latter - since the assumed / official motions of our most famous comet are simply wrong, as I have by now thoroughly demonstrated.

As a final note please note that : 1152 - 395 = 757 (or precisely 10 X 75.7 years - which is comet Halley's proposed average and regular orbital period - as of the TYCHOS model. Note also that 1909 - 1152 = 757, and that Halley's comet did indeed return in 1909/1910.

This concludes my latest foray into the study of Halley's comet. Now, pick up your jaw from the floor - and start smiling again, as you happily realize that even an amateur (and totally un-funded) researcher like your humble servant Simon Shack can provide answers to some of the major riddles of our universe. :)

************
The full Chapter 30 of my new book (now completed) "HALLEY - THE GREAT DECEIVER": https://book.tychos.space/chapters/30-halleys-comet
nonhocapito
Member
Posts: 2579
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 5:38 am
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: Halley's Comet in the TYCHOS

Unread post by nonhocapito »

What the Tychos system can do is amazing, but I have strong doubts on the historic revisionism of Jesus' birth.

It so happens that unbeknownst to most, Jesus' life is one of the most documented periods in history.

There are more manuscripts of the Gospels than there are of any other piece of history ever written. The amount of archeological evidence corroborating what the gospels describe is astounding.

On this, I highly recommend the "Life of Jesus Christ" (Vita di Gesù Cristo) by Giuseppe Ricciotti. An extraordinary book.

Image

On the comet, this book provides no answers. It simply states that the lack of astronomical evidence doesn't prove the "light" was not seen, because, simply put, the light was a sign of God, not an astronomical phenomena. Do with that as you please. Ricciotti is a believer after all.

Regardless, the book powerfully shows beyond any reasonable doubt how Jesus was a historical figure, who lived around the years (6 BCE - 28 CE), when we have always known him to. A highly recommended read.
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7341
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Halley's Comet in the TYCHOS

Unread post by simonshack »

*

Dear nonhocapito,

I hear you - and would like to clarify somewhat my thoughts regarding Fomenko - versus Morozov, as it were. I have an inkling that the former may, perhaps - just perhaps - be up to no good (as I shall expound shortly). The reason why I was intrigued by Fomenko's 1152 dating of "Jesus" was, more than anything else, because according to the Tychosium, Halley's comet did in fact transit close to the Earth in 1152 (and passed precisely 'above' the Sun on December 25...). To be sure though, Fomenko doesn't mention anything about any comet passing that year (as far as I know). So let's leave it at that - and please know that I'm quite happy to 'go with' the 6 BC birth date of the real JC.

My above-mentioned inkling has to do with Fomenko's apparent plagiarism and distortion'(or 'exacerbation', if you will) of Morozov's findings (the astronomer who determined the date of September 30, 395 AD - as described in my above post). In fact, Fomenko now claims that the celestial events described in the 'Apocalypse' actually occurred in ...1486!

"The only moment in time when the combination of planets and constellations described in the Apocalypse could have been observed live from the island of Patmos was from the 25th of september 1486 to 10th of October 1486." https://www.rasa.sk/stranka/rasa/knihy/ ... 1613785172

Yesterday I bumped into this Russian (auto-translated?) post from 2017 which, most interestingly, broaches the questionable character of Fomenko and his plagiarism of Morozov's work. It is well worth the read: https://vk.com/wall-9143630_206814?lang=en

So, could it be that Fomenko's (and his co-researcher Nosovskiy) 'up-the-ante-antics' are meant to discredit Morozov's findings (which caused quite a stir back in the days - and apparently still do)? As we both know, this would not be the first case of a disinfo-team being tasked with throwing ridicule upon serious and earnest researchers... See, leaving aside the birth date of JC, I personally have no problems with the notion that the New Testament - what with the 'Apocalypse by John the Revelator' - might have been written post-395 AD (yet NOT as late as 1486!). Do you? Let me know your thoughts - I would much appreciate reading them. :)
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7341
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Halley's Comet in the TYCHOS

Unread post by simonshack »

*

Dear all, this post is just some sort of repository of my ongoing research regarding the controversial sightings of Halley's comet in 1985. Consider it as a little notebook of mine - as I pursue my ongoing investigation into this important matter. Yes, what follows is certainly an inquiry of the 'conspiratorial' kind - but I think we all know by now that we live in a world where powerful folks continuously conspire to distort reality (in all fields of human knowledge) - and that this is the norm rather than the exception. Make no mistake: this also applies to the fields of astronomy and cosmology - but foremostly to the shady institution known as "NASA". Yet why, you may ask, is the last transit of Halley's comet in our skies (in 1985/1986) a matter of importance? Well, this should become clear as we go along.



HALLEY'S 1985 SIGHTINGS - A JPL/NASA COVERUP?

It is my contention that the last transit of Halley's comet in our skies (in 1985/1986) represented a very serious problem for the 'establishment' (i.e. the promoters and 'guardians' of the Copernican / heliocentric model of our Solar System). This, because - unlike the previous Halley transit in 1910 - a great many amateur astronomers were now armed with fairly powerful telescopes (albeit still not with the current 'people's power' of internet communication). Such amateur astronomers might have - accidentally / by pure chance - monitored parts of our skies other than those in which comet Halley was (officially) predicted to approach in 1985 - and exposed the entire heliocentric scam...

Let's see what we may find around the internets regarding the (alleged) early sightings of comet Halley in 1985:

"The first to observe Halley's Comet with the naked eye during its 1986 apparition were Stephen Edberg (then serving as the coordinator for amateur observations at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory) and Charles Morris on 8 November 1985." Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halley%27s_Comet

Now, if this story is true, wouldn't thousands of people around the world also have seen it "with their naked eyes"? And who is this other Charles Morris fellow who also allegedly "saw Halley's comet with the naked eye" back in November 1985? Well, on this other website we may read that...

"He [Charles Morris] ran a comet website for years at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, where he worked for 22 years. (...) He made Time magazine for being the first (along with Stephen Edberg) to see Halley's comet with the naked eye during its latest go-round in 1985." https://archive.vcstar.com/lifestyle/he ... 3671.html/

Wow, those JPL/NASA fellows seem to have sharper eyes than everyone else on this planet! (to be sure, there seem to be only a handful of reports & papers to be found regarding '1985 sightings of Halley's comet'). We may then go to the Space.com website to find out that...

"These two photographs of Comet Halley were obtained the night of Nov. 14, 1985, by JPL astronomer Eleanor Helin."

Image

And furthermore...

"This photograph of Halley's Comet was taken January 13,1986, by James W. Young, resident astronomer of JPL's Table Mountain Observatory in the San Bernardino Mountains, using the 24-inch reflective telescope."

Image

"James Whitney Young (born January 24, 1941) is an American astronomer who worked in the field of asteroid research. After nearly 47 years with the Jet Propulsion Laboratory at their Table Mountain Facility, Young retired July 16, 2009." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Whitney_Young

Alright. So let's now take a look at how the JPL/NASA orbit viewer depicts Halley's position in late 1985:

Image

As you can see, according to the official data of Halley's approach to Earth in 1985, it certainly should have been visible in LATE 1985 (although NOT in MID-1985 - since it would have been - according to the official line - 'behind' the Sun). Here's what we may find with a simple Bing.com search:

Image

Note that the above info authored by R.M. West (incidentally yet another employee of JPL/NASA ) also mentions - as I have highlighted in red type - that "it now appears that the first confirmed sighting was made at the European Southern Observatory on July 19" [1985]. However, as I pointed out a few years ago (in this 2019 post and in this screenshot), the ESO tables have NO observational data whatsoever of Halley's between February 20 and August 20 1985...

Source of the ESO tables for Halley's 1985/1986 transit: https://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi ... lassic=YES

As it is, the Tychosium actually agrees with the above info: comet Halley could not have been observed in June & July 1985 - not because it was 'behind' the Sun, but because it was in front of it and was thus swamped in the solar glare (just like our Moon, Mercury and Venus, each time they transit in front of the Sun!):

Image


Now, according to the Tychosium, in late 1985 Halley's comet transited more or less at the OPPOSITE side (of that predicted by officialdom) of our skies! As you may well imagine, this represented a potential disaster for the Copernican / heliocentric dogma. Had any influential astronomer pointed this out (and somehow managed to prove it), heliocentrism would now be toast. Hence my substantiated suspicion that a bunch of JPL/NASA "experts" were tasked to sell the lie that Halley's comet was empirically observed (even with the naked eye!) during the year 1985, in locations of our skies that suit the 'official line'. Note: so far, however, I have not been able to find any papers by the above-listed JPL/NASA employees which document the exact celestial positions (ephemeris data) of the comet at the times of their alleged 1985 sightings and photographs.

As the comet then emerged from the Sun's glare around mid-February 1986, it was seen transiting on the 'correct' side of our skies - at around 20h of RA:

"After the successful recovery of Comet Halley on 15 February, at the European Southern Observatory (ESO), observations have been made at the ESO La Silla Observatory every morning since." https://www.eso.org/public/italy/news/eso8604/

As it is, the Tychosium is in good agreement with a well-documented photograph of Halley's - on MARCH 18, 1986 - by amateur astronomer Dick Suiter.

Image
Source: https://www.bay-astronomers.org/Backiss ... Halley.pdf

Halley’s position on 1986-03-18 (as of Dick Suiter's data): RA: 19h50m and DECL: -24°39’

Halley’s in the TYCHOSIUM simulator on 1986-03-18: RA: 19h44m and DECL: -23°30’

In his above-linked pdf paper (of August 2020), Dick Suiter takes issue with the famed Stellarium simulator (which puts Halley's comet in... the wrong places) and, more generally, vents his perplexity concerning the sloppy ways that historical cometary data is currently 'managed' by the astronomical community. He concludes:
"What do we do when we play back astronomical events of history and do not have data with which to compare. We take a gamble. I think the reason comet errors can persist so long is because people may remember the comet but they don't remember the particular stars it was photographed against. The best thing to do if you make a planetarium simulator calculation of Stellarium or indeed any other program (and don't have real data) is to compare it with contemporary news graphics such as appear in Sky and Telescope. Lacking that, the second best thing is to compare a number of independent sources. If you are doing deep historical calculations where there are few reliable contemporary records, be very careful of making broad pronouncements." - Dick Suiter
Dick Suiter's query at the Stellarium simulator's website: "Incorrect 1P/Halley position near 1986 perihelion": https://github.com/Stellarium/stellarium/issues/1241

It is almost comical to read the convoluted 'explanations' as to why the current Stellarium simulator is utterly useless when it comes to track the secular motions of Halley's comet. It provides some (partially) correct positions for Halley's last passage in 1986, but as you go back in time (e.g. to its prior passages in 1910, 1835, 1759, 1682, etc.) its given celestial positions drift increasingly - and quite dramatically - out of whack (with respect to the best-documented CLOSE passages to Earth of the past). When queried by Dick Suiter (see above link) about such problems, a Stellarium operator replied as follows: "Stellarium does not model orbital disturbance by the planets or even non-gravitational effects from outgassing, solar radiation pressure or whatever." The question thus becomes: with so many (alleged) variables - which would (supposedly) affect Halley's secular motions, HOW exactly do mainstream astronomers go about computing the comet's secular (past and future) ephemerides to be found in their official tables and catalogues? The Stellarium operator then goes on providing some intricate advice of how to 'circumvent' these glaring flaws of their famed simulator machine. Yet, WHY on Earth would this be? Why would a modern and long-developed digital simulator still (in our technological 2020's) be unable to accurately animate the secular motions of Halley's comet? Dick Suiter justly comments as follows:
"In the meantime they suggest that the user load the information contained under Halley in the ssystem_1000comets database.* This procedure is especially mysterious to the unsophisticated user, and requires a lot of digging in the manual to uncover even the existence and purpose of this database. One would hope that they would at least modify the manual to warn user about this problem, and point out that you need to use the 1000comets database for historical comet orbits."
Go figure... -_-

Oh wait: perhaps it's because the entire Copernican / heliocentric model is wrong?... And that - therefore - so are the most ridiculous cigar-shaped cometary orbits (and their assorted 'gravitational perturbations') proposed by 'Lord' Isaac?

Image

Above: a diagram from Chapter 30 of the new 2nd Edition of my book - "The TYCHOS-Our Geoaxial Binary System" (March 2022)
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7341
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Halley's Comet in the TYCHOS

Unread post by simonshack »

*

*******************************************IMPORTANT UPDATE TO THE ABOVE POST****************************************


MACHHOLZ'S 1985 COMET ... WAS HALLEY'S!

Dear all, in the last few years a Swedish fellow on Reddit (moniker: "Quantumtroll") has been relentlessly challenging the TYCHOS model - more often than not in a rather dismissive and derisive style. His latest objection is that Halley's comet couldn't possibly have been where the Tychosium 3d simulator has it in mid-1985 (i.e. transiting between the Sun and Earth) and that, even if it had been there, "it couldn't possibly have been lost in the Sun's glare" (??). Of course, everyone knows that our Moon, Mercury and venus are regularly lost in the Sun's glare each time that they transit in front of the Sun!

Please keep in mind that the latest passage of Halley's comet in 1986 was, notoriously and by all accounts, a 'terrible disappointment'. The famous comet was barely visible with the naked eye and those who got a glimpse of it described it as a faint speck of light (with a minuscule tail)... Now, since the Tychosium simulator has Halley's comet also passing near Earth in mid-1985, I shall now present my latest finding related to this hotly-debated topic.

Well, today I decided to look for any "other" comets that might have been observed right around mid-1985. To my delight, I promptly found a 'candidate' that would quite beautifully, so-to-speak, fit the glove; namely, the comet known as "C/1985 K1 Machholz" (or "Machholz 1985e") which was discovered on May 27, 1985 by the American amateur astronomer (and most accomplished comet-hunter) Donald Machholz.

ImageDonald Machholz
"Donald Edward Machholz, born October 7, 1952 in Portsmouth, Virginia, is an American amateur astronomer who is the leading visual comet discoverer, credited with the visual discovery of 12 comets that bear his name."

Funnily enough, my TYCHOS research partner Patrik Holmqvist (a.k.a. "Patrix" on Cluesforum) independently tried to contact Donald Machholz back in 2020 ! (only because he's a famed comet hunter) - yet got no reply from him. http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p= ... 6#p2414437

Oddly enough, this comet (which 'coincidentally' passed close to Earth in mid-1985 - at a time when the entire world was awaiting in trepidation the return of the famous comet Halley!) is nowhere to be found in the ENGLISH Wikipedia, but I luckily found a short description of it on the ITALIAN Wikipedia (my translation) :
"C/1985 K1 (Machholz) is a non-periodic comet discovered on 27 May 1985, the second comet discovered by US astrophile Donald Edward Machholz. According to the ephemeris, the comet was supposed to reach magnitude 4a to 5a between the end of June and the beginning of July 1985. In fact, the comet, which was very poorly positioned for observations as it was extremely close to the Sun, after being observed at 7.6a in the first half of June was no longer observed until four days before perihelion when it was observed in the infrared."
https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/C/1985_K1_Machholz
So let's see: Machholz's 1985 comet was "extremely close to the Sun"; it was expected to reach 4a to 5a (i.e. within naked-eye view - the threshold of which is around 6a); however, this never happened: after being viewed (telescopically) at 7.6a in the first half of June it disappeared from view and was only observed in the infrared a short while later. Moreover, please note that Machholz's 1985 comet is described as a "non-periodic" comet: in other words, no one has any clue as to IF or WHEN it will EVER return in our skies... We are thus left to believe that it just passed - by sheer coincidence - close to the Earth in mid-1985, just as Halley's comet was expected to arrive in our skies - never to return ever again! If you can believe in such extraordinary, 'astronomical coincidences' - you would rightly deserve to be called a 'coincidence theorist'...

"The discovery of comet Machholz 1985e - by Don Machholz" : https://donmachholz.com/comet-discoveries/may-27-1985/

Image

In the above-linked writeup, Don Machholz recounts the details of his comet discovery, on May 27 1985 - which he made with a homemade cardboard telescope. Interestingly, by the end of his account, he mentions that "reporting the comet was nearly as hard as finding it" and recalls the many difficulties he encountered as he tried to report (by telegram and telephone) his important observation to the Smithsonian Astrophysical Institute ("the clearinghouse for comet discoveries") which failed to reply - and then to its director, Dr. Marsden (whom Don eventually managed to reach - and who admitted that his comet had never been detected). In hindsight, one may well wonder why the Smithsonian (or ANY of the largest observatories around the world) failed to detect the approaching comet - at a time when Halley's, the most famous of all comets, was expected to arrive...

On May 27 1985, Machholz discovered "his comet" with a home-made cardboard telescope, from a mountain called Loma Prieta (California).

On that night, at about 4am local time (or 13:00 UTC), he recorded the location of "his comet" at RA:0h49m and DECL: +15°08'.

Now, on that very same date and time, the Tychosium simulator has Halley's comet transiting at RA:0h37m and DECL: +15°09'!

Image

BOOM !!!

Well, ladies and gents, I will now solemnly proclaim "GAME OVER". With this latest finding, Patrik and I have now well and truly proven - beyond any rational and admissible doubt - that the Tychosium 3D is the only existing simulator of our Solar System that can correctly account for the secular motions of Halley's comet. Yes, the Tychosium still needs some fine-tuning and adjustments - and that is why Patrik is currently hard at work programming an updated version of it. Nonetheless, I am now fully satisfied that we've been on the right track all along. However, if you are keen to argue that this latest discovery of mine can (yet again) be chalked up to some "random coincidental happenstance", I will be more than happy to hear you out - and wish you good luck in your attempts at falsifying the TYCHOS model. In any event, the onus is now on you to try and salvage the heliocentric / Copernican theory from its impending collapse.

Let the "Tychosian Revolution" begin! :)

*********************************
My full research about Halley's comet is to be found in Chapter 30 of the 2nd Edition of my TYCHOS book: https://book.tychos.space/chapters/30-halleys-comet
Flabbergasted
Administrator
Posts: 1244
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: Halley's Comet in the TYCHOS

Unread post by Flabbergasted »

If Mars is the key to figuring out the anatomy of our planetary system, Halley´s Comet is the proof of the pudding of the Tychos.
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7341
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Halley's Comet in the TYCHOS

Unread post by simonshack »

Flabbergasted wrote: Tue Jul 12, 2022 3:13 am If Mars is the key to figuring out the anatomy of our planetary system, Halley´s Comet is the proof of the pudding of the Tychos.
Yes, dear Flabbergasted.

I am extremely grateful for Donald Machholz's 1985 observation of Halley's comet which effectively provided the ultimate proof of the Tychosium's correct simulation / representation of comet Halley's motions. In the next few days I will try to contact him - and see what he has to say about all of this...

******************
UPDATE (February 2024): I did contact Donald Machholz (over Facebook) to thank him for his observation of Halley's comet on May 27, 1985. Donald never replied - and has now deleted his Facebook account.
Fredrika
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Jul 24, 2019 8:59 am

Re: Halley's Comet in the TYCHOS

Unread post by Fredrika »

These last posts worry me a bit, regarding the sub header and text on "HALLEY'S 1985 SIGHTINGS - A JPL/NASA COVERUP?"

Without thinking too much about the situation at NASA, I perhaps took too lightly on their Copernican stance, they knowing of course that they are lying about all their rockets and probes to other planets, but simply ignorant about the true nature of the Solar System.

This hinting at a cover-up almost looks like they instead may understand that the TYCHOS model is correct, while they cover any tracks that might confirm that such is the case.

If it is so, when did they come to understand that the Copernican/Kepler model is wrong and therefore cannot be used to cover for their fraudulent space missions?

I get an uneasy feeling about NASA. It's like a covid plandemic scheme where all lies must be patched up by other lies, e.g. "Halley's trajectory has changed due to the climate crisis", like they do now with all (young) people dying from the warmth of a good and rather ordinary summer's day – even if they are healthy athletics and happen to die in air-conditioned condos, possibly from "post heatwave trauma" or some such nonsense – instead of admitting that people's bodies are stressed out by the frigging so-called vaccines.

I guess this is what the now popular notion of cognitive dissonance is all about, not accepting facts because it would be admitting to lying or having been wrong about things. But it makes me uncomfortable.
Mansur
Member
Posts: 210
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 9:22 pm

Re: Halley's Comet in the TYCHOS

Unread post by Mansur »

The gigantic hoax of space travel and its exposure, and the fact that the astronomical system 'in force' has many dark spots (in my opinion necessarily and inevitably), have nothing to do with each other.

If NASA had control of a less flawed or, God forbid, a flawless astronomical system (if such a thing were even possible), it would use that too for cheating. Of that there can be no doubt.


But let me note that there is no flawless 'model'. If a model is good for anything, it is good for being placed next to the other… If competent people would realize this, dozens of models could probably be created. Who knows, maybe they already exist.* Especially in today's world dominated by cybernetics… (Although I for one would prefer to live in a world without models. As our ancestors have done for centuries and their ancestors for millennia - no doubt in a civilization far more mature than ours in all important respects.)

* And they may have existed in ancient time as well.
patrix
Member
Posts: 712
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 10:24 am

Re: Halley's Comet in the TYCHOS

Unread post by patrix »

A model/theory is valid/correct or "flawless" as you put it Mansur, as long as it's reasonable and can be confirmed independently. Reasonable, meaning in agreement with logic, known laws of nature and previous independently confirmed theories. But when an observation is made that contradicts the model/theory, it will have to be changed to remain valid, otherwise discarded. For example if a claim is made that a gas expansion creates a force that can propel the container from which the gas expands in an unrestricted vacuum (i.e. a rocket in space), then this hypothesis/theory/claim will have to be discarded since it is not reasonable because it violates known laws of physics. This is what scientific models/theories and the scientific method is in a nutshell. No more, no less.

These "house rules" is what makes science real science. But as we can confirm in more ways than one, science is the enemy of the Nutwork for the simple reason that it cannot be controlled and thus a society that is anchored in proper science cannot be controlled or rather bamboozled either.

And as you're getting at Fredrika, the corruption of science is by design and has been going on since the 17th century and includes astronomy and the configuration of our Solar system and the Universe. I didn't think of it that way when I began looking at Simons Tychos model five years ago, but seeing how Tycho Brahes model was flipped on its head by Kepler and then further enforced by Galileos, Newtons and Einsteins pseudoscience and dogma, has made me realize that this is not a result of honest mistakes and confirmation bias. But of course, mainstream astronomers of today cannot see this. The lie is too big and sealed by NASAs space travel fakery.

So I for one, don't prefer a world without models and the proper science that Simon and a select few are engaging in. I think we've been living far too long in a world without it. And the end result is a crippling and depopulation event of biblical proportions - Covid vaccinations.
simonshack
Administrator
Posts: 7341
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 8:09 pm
Location: italy
Contact:

Re: Halley's Comet in the TYCHOS

Unread post by simonshack »

Fredrika wrote: Tue Jul 19, 2022 1:37 pm If it is so, when did they come to understand that the Copernican/Kepler model is wrong and therefore cannot be used to cover for their fraudulent space missions?
Dear Fredrika,

Yours is certainly a good question - yet, even if I'm still unsure as to "when" (or by whom) it was realized that the heliocentric model is wrong, I can offer you the following food for thought which I hope you'll appreciate: as I see it, as long as the vast majority of people will believe in both space travel and in the Copernican model - the fact that they are both fraudulent (or plain wrong) will matter little to "them". Even though some discerning folks (like you and me) are starting to realize their fraudulent nature, we are still very much a 'fringe' group of thinkers - and a long way away from reaching the proverbial "critical mass". In fact, it would appear that we are still outnumbered even by those who claim to 'fight the system' - yet keep clinging onto their comfort zone when it comes to questioning the 'established' science - or hey, even Santa Claus...

As it is, I could reformulate your above question as follows:

"If it is so, when did they come to understand that Germ Theory is wrong and therefore cannot be used to cover for their fraudulent vaccines?"

I'm sure that you get my drift... -_-
Post Reply