Hancock's astronomy

Home

Discussion Forums

Papers

Authors

January 18, 2021, 2:09 am UTC

In: The Hall of Maat > Ancient History - Ancient History and Archaeology > Topic

Goto: Forum List • Create A New Profile • Log In

Ancient History • Ancient Egypt • Laboratory • Humanities • Apocalypse • Paper Lens • Coffee Shop
Exhibitions, Conferences, Lectures, Journals • Alternative Geometry and Numerology

Stephen Tonkin

February 18, 2002 05:02PM

<HTML>Whilst looking in FOG (2001) for something else, I stumbled across these gems:

<i>A conjunction of five planets that can be expected to have profound gravitational effects will take place on 5 May in the year 2000 when Neptune, Uranus, Venus, Mercury and Mars will align with earth on the other side of the Sun. </i> (p 245)

Did anyone notice these "profound gravitational effects"? (Actually, I did -- I broke my ankle that day, much to the amusement of my students, whom I had been assuring that this so-called alignment would have no noticeable effect! [g])

However, Hancock's statement is wrong in almost every important respect, including what planets are involved in this so-called "alignment". See <a href="[www.astunit.com];.

<i>Earthquakes, for example, occur more often when the moon is full or when the earth is between the sun and the moon; when the moon is new or between the sun and the earth; when the moon crosses the meridian of the affected locality; and when the moon is closest to the earth on its orbit.</i> (p246)

This is utter nonsense and is straight from Velikovsky. In 1975, when I first encountered this nonsense, I got hold of earthquake data and analysed them statistically -- there was no statistical difference between earthquake frequency at syzygy and at quadrature.</HTML>

Reply Quote

Subject	Author	Posted
Hancock's astronomy	Stephen Tonkin	February 18, 2002 05:02PM
Re: Hancock's astronomy	Mercury Rapids	February 18, 2002 05:09PM
Re: Hancock's astronomy	jameske	February 18, 2002 05:13PM
Re: Hancock's astronomy	Stephen Tonkin	February 18, 2002 05:23PM
Re: Hancock's astronomy	jameske	February 18, 2002 05:29PM
5/5/2000	Anthony	February 18, 2002 05:26PM
Re: 5/5/2000	Katherine Reece	February 18, 2002 05:29PM
Oh - oh	Anthony	February 18, 2002 05:36PM
Re: Oh - oh	Katherine Reece	February 18, 2002 05:49PM
especially for you	ZAPATA	February 18, 2002 07:38PM
Re: especially for you	Graham'O	February 19, 2002 02:01AM
Re: Hancock's astronomy	Darryl	February 18, 2002 06:51PM
Spelling mistakes	darryl	February 18, 2002 07:08PM
Re: Hancock's astronomy	Stephen Tonkin	February 18, 2002 07:24PM
Damn skippy	Katherine Reece	February 18, 2002 08:09PM
Please refrain....	Bryan	February 19, 2002 04:39AM
Re: Damn skippy	Stephen Tonkin	February 19, 2002 10:12AM
Re: Hancock's astronomy	Bryan	February 19, 2002 04:04AM
Re: Hancock's astronomy	ZAPATA	February 18, 2002 07:22PM
Re: Hancock's astronomy	Stephen Tonkin	February 18, 2002 07:47PM
Re: Hancock's astronomy	jameske	February 19, 2002 07:02AM
Re: Hancock's astronomy	Stephen Tonkin	February 19, 2002 07:54AM
Re: Hancock's astronomy	jameske	February 19, 2002 09:31AM
Re: Hancock's astronomy	Stephen Tonkin	February 19, 2002 09:38AM
Re: Hancock's astronomy	Sally Stanton	February 18, 2002 07:34PM

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login