RE: Was the star of Bethlehem a real astronomical event?
October 21, 2011 at 9:12 pm
(This post was last modified: October 21, 2011 at 9:15 pm by Cyberman.)
First things first: I want to thank all of you for your patience at my recent bit of melodrama, I just hope I didn't do or say anything too embarassing. Depression's a terrible thing to have to live with. I'm still not 100% myself right now but I was just idly browsing, trying to occupy my mind, when I saw this little lot and if I'd resisted any more I'd probably have burst.
I did watch your video and I did look at your link. It was around the point Josephus entered the picture that I walked out. However there were a few choice morsels to chew on. Sadly they turned out to be mostly gristle and fat.
Rick Larson is not an astronomer. He is a Dominionist Fundamentalist preacher with a PhD in Philosophy who clearly knows more about confirmation bias than astronomy because his tatty little website is full of it. He started with the conclusion that Jupiter and the Bedlam star were the same thing and then created, distorted, inverted, modified and discarded facts to fit. If you think this is what scientists do then you're a bigger fool than I was willing to give you credit for and I have no more time for you.
He asserts nine identifying characteristics that would qualify an object as The Star. Why nine? Who can tell? Perhaps it was the largest number he could extract with the minimum of rectal bleeding. He then proceeds to shoehorn the conjunction of Jupiter and Regulus (α Leonis) into these artificial constructs. Examples:
- Jupiter was 'king' of the Roman gods; Regulus means 'king' in different languages and cultures, although it's really Latin for "Prince" (ie "Little King"). Well, let's twist it a bit; I'm sure nobody will notice.
- Jupiter rose in the East, therefore Jesus. Do I really need to pass comment on this? I wouldn't even pass water on it if it was on fire.
- Jupiter described a retrograde motion in the years 3-2 BC. Well whoop-de-fucking-doo, tickle my balls and call me Mary. Even if that was true, it did the same damn thing 13 months or so earlier, and again 13 months later. And so on. And so on. And so on... Ah, says Larson, but it did it three times, each one a conjunction with Regulus. As near as I can determine, there was a close conjunction around 1 BCE that occurred during a Jupiter retrograde loop - close in this sense means miles a-fucking-way; in the general area, but in no way "crowning" the "king star" as Larson would have us believe. He claims that such a triple pass is much rarer than a normal one, yet this is what every outer planet does when it retrogrades: the 'normal' forward path, then the reverse loop, followed by the resumption of the original forward motion. That Jupiter did this in the region of one particular star is inevitable; have you ever even seen how many stars are up there? (Amazing But True: there are at least seven!).
- Herod was unaware of these things, as he wasn't an astronomer. Yeah, I think by now the bolts in his neck were working loose.
- Oh, and Venus (the "Mother Planet") was involved as well.
Okay, I'm not going to regurgitate everything this idiot has glued together, particularly when he throws in biblespam about "the lion of Judah" etc as another 'identifying characteristic'. This is the bit that really caught my eye:
The elements involved in the story are: a miraculous, some would say magical, star with remarkable homing instincts; a group of peripatetic astrologers; a baby. And you jumped on the one bit of the story that positively screams "mythology" to be the non-fiction part?
(October 21, 2011 at 1:27 pm)CoxRox Wrote: Did you watch the film or read the web site account? I don't know if I am guilty of confirmation bias. A rainy day is very common.
I did watch your video and I did look at your link. It was around the point Josephus entered the picture that I walked out. However there were a few choice morsels to chew on. Sadly they turned out to be mostly gristle and fat.
Rick Larson is not an astronomer. He is a Dominionist Fundamentalist preacher with a PhD in Philosophy who clearly knows more about confirmation bias than astronomy because his tatty little website is full of it. He started with the conclusion that Jupiter and the Bedlam star were the same thing and then created, distorted, inverted, modified and discarded facts to fit. If you think this is what scientists do then you're a bigger fool than I was willing to give you credit for and I have no more time for you.
He asserts nine identifying characteristics that would qualify an object as The Star. Why nine? Who can tell? Perhaps it was the largest number he could extract with the minimum of rectal bleeding. He then proceeds to shoehorn the conjunction of Jupiter and Regulus (α Leonis) into these artificial constructs. Examples:
- Jupiter was 'king' of the Roman gods; Regulus means 'king' in different languages and cultures, although it's really Latin for "Prince" (ie "Little King"). Well, let's twist it a bit; I'm sure nobody will notice.
- Jupiter rose in the East, therefore Jesus. Do I really need to pass comment on this? I wouldn't even pass water on it if it was on fire.
- Jupiter described a retrograde motion in the years 3-2 BC. Well whoop-de-fucking-doo, tickle my balls and call me Mary. Even if that was true, it did the same damn thing 13 months or so earlier, and again 13 months later. And so on. And so on. And so on... Ah, says Larson, but it did it three times, each one a conjunction with Regulus. As near as I can determine, there was a close conjunction around 1 BCE that occurred during a Jupiter retrograde loop - close in this sense means miles a-fucking-way; in the general area, but in no way "crowning" the "king star" as Larson would have us believe. He claims that such a triple pass is much rarer than a normal one, yet this is what every outer planet does when it retrogrades: the 'normal' forward path, then the reverse loop, followed by the resumption of the original forward motion. That Jupiter did this in the region of one particular star is inevitable; have you ever even seen how many stars are up there? (Amazing But True: there are at least seven!).
- Herod was unaware of these things, as he wasn't an astronomer. Yeah, I think by now the bolts in his neck were working loose.
- Oh, and Venus (the "Mother Planet") was involved as well.
Okay, I'm not going to regurgitate everything this idiot has glued together, particularly when he throws in biblespam about "the lion of Judah" etc as another 'identifying characteristic'. This is the bit that really caught my eye:
(October 21, 2011 at 1:27 pm)CoxRox Wrote: The specific features of this astonomical alignment CORRESPOND EXACTLY with the 'star' mentioned in the gospels . That doesn't mean that magi really did 'follow' it, or that it really did mean a 'king' had been born. Maybe the writers mixed some truth with fiction.
The elements involved in the story are: a miraculous, some would say magical, star with remarkable homing instincts; a group of peripatetic astrologers; a baby. And you jumped on the one bit of the story that positively screams "mythology" to be the non-fiction part?
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'