Home of the The Hall of Ma'at on the Internet
Home
Discussion Forums
Papers
Authors

January 18, 2021, 2:09 am UTC    
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>
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