Previous Update

MIDDLE EAST UPDATES (if there are any to speak of) September 27 - October 3, 2016

If you happened to read the last chapter on the first day of my getting it out, you may have noted some errors on my part. I hadn't had time to proof-read, but have since corrected the problems. Let me tell you that having to stop in the middle of writing to convert kilometers to miles, and vice versa, in a topic that is already complicated, is very tying. NASA is now using kilometers, and so I switched to them in the last chapter, though I've been using miles primarily until now. My mind is more a fog when making this change. I've been at this almost daily for weeks, and my mind continues to rebel by refusing to be sharp. It demands to be exhausted instead, and attacks me by confusing me. As I continue, I've caught myself making silly mistakes that I would not normally make. You've now been warned. Do your own proofing.

About a week ago, it was realized that the distance to the sun can be found where the penumbra line meets the umbra line, for both go to the edge of the sun. The problem was that Fred Espenak is reporting the true times and/or lunar velocity for the solar eclipse of March 9, 2016. I added some things to this topic on the second day, in the last chapter, and concluded that, even if the moon was traveling at a "more-correct" velocity than Fred has it, the angle of the eclipse line is still impossible. I therefore said, "It apparently means that the velocity is still wrong, yet I'm working off of "more-correct" according to NASA's fastest velocity. See the next chapter to see my attempt to get the correct velocity according to the data in this eclipse."

The long and the short of it was that the time between U1 and U2 was 92.6 seconds, according to Fred's too-slow lunar velocity (2,338 mi/hr), and 91.285 seconds according to a more-correct velocity of 2,400 mi/hr. The distance of umbra travel for both scenarios was only 96.78 (Fred's scenario) and 97.94 kilometers, yet neither figure gave an angle for the umbra line (to the sun) that was less than the angular-size line to the sun. Reality demands that the eclipse-line angle be smaller.

Therefore, my conclusion is that the upper-limit velocity figure (1.076 km/sec = 2,407 mi/hr) given out by NASA is wrong. It appears that it needs to be lower than 2,338 mi/hr, for that is what's needed to get an eclipse line smaller than the angular-size line. If there is anything that we should be able to trust NASA with, it's the angular size of the sun on the day of the eclipse, but at this point, I can't trust NASA for one single thing. If everything it reports is based on a computer model, with the holy cow being a 93-million-mile sun, perhaps even the reported angular size of the sun is erroneous. After all, the sun's edges are hard to define exactly, wherefore abuse can be attempted. A light filter (in the telescope's viewer) may remove the glare around the sun's edges, but it may also reduce the diameter from the reality. Some astronomers like to say that the sun has no edge, though it must.

After calculating the number of seconds that Fred has for the time (12,049 seconds) that the umbra took to cross the earth fully, and from that to get the lunar velocity of 1.05755 km/sec, I was able to say: "The moon would travel 1.05755 x 12,049 = 12,742.487 kilometers using Fred's numbers, while one earth diameter is said to be 12,742.8 kilometers. It seems bang-on of Fred, but something is wrong because the velocity is not fast enough for one day before perigee." There are thus two problems that exacerbate the problem: 1) Fred's data has the moon going slower than it should be according to NASA's upper-limit velocity; 2) Fred's velocity is still too fast to get a solar-eclipse line at a viable angle.

What I can do is to use math in arriving to the fastest-possible lunar velocity during this eclipse. To do this, we make the solar-eclipse line match the angular-size line. The latter was at .268347 degree (according to Fred's eclipse page), where his 16'06.05" arc-minutes (= 16.1 arc-minutes) converts to that figure (divide 16.1 arc-minutes by 60). When we put .268347 in the angle-A box with 359758 (kilometers from earth core to lunar core) in the edge-b box, we find 1,684.95 kilometers in the edge-a box. It means that we subtract the latter from the lunar radius (1738.1) to find the radius of the umbra, at the earth's core (imagine the shadow penetrating rock), to be 53.15 kilometers. When we put .268347 in angle-A and the earth radius, 6,371.4 kilometers, in edge-b, we find 29.84 in edge-a, meaning that the umbra radius works out to 53.15 + 29.84 = 82.99 kilometers (as compared to Fred's 77.55).

The paragraph above is hard to grasp without some explanation. Draw a line between the moon core and earth core, and call it the umbra-center line. The paragraph above draws a line from the top edge of the moon to 53.15 kilometers above the umbra-center line at the earth's core, but doesn't tell us how high the umbra line is above the umbra-center line at the earth's surface. Just to make sure you can discover what I'm doing, entering .268347 in the angle-A box with 359758 (no comma) in the edge-b box creates a triangle with line 'b' parallel with the umbra-center line, but 53.15 kilometers above it. Line 'a' is a vertical line at the moon with a bottom end 53.15 kilometers above its core and a top end at the moon's top edge. Line 'c' is the umbra line. When line 'c' contacts the earth, it forms a small triangle there with the edge of the earth now acting as line 'a' (= the unknown distance that we want to know). This smaller triangle is formed with the above i.e. with .268347 in angle-A and 6371.4 in edge-b, and because we find 29.84 in the edge-a box, the umbra line works out to be 53.15 + 29.84 = 82.99 kilometers above the umbra-center line.

The umbra diameter thus works out to 82.99 x 2 = 166 kilometers, and we're not done yet, because this is the case when the line is at an angle (.268347 degree) equal to that of the angular-size line. It's not the reality, but it shows that the umbra had to have a radius larger than 82.99 kilometers, for when the umbra line is made less steep (smaller) than .268347 degree, the umbra diameter gets larger, and the reality is that the umbra line MUST be smaller than .268347.

My best shot at figuring the sun's distance, using lunar-eclipse lines, was 5.1 million miles. The sun's radius worked out to about 23,750 miles. With those two numbers in edge-b and edge-a, the line from earth core to sun's edge is said to be at .2668 degree. If we use that angle for the umbra line in the solar eclipse under discussion, we will get a close approximation of what the real umbra diameter was (for this eclipse). We put .2668 in angle-A with 359758 in edge b to find 1 675.2 in edge-a, and we therefore do 1738.1 - 1,675.2 = 62.9 kilometers. We then make the second triangle with .2668 in angle-A but with 6,371.4 in edge-b, to find 29.7 in edge-a, wherefore the umbra radius is now 62.9 + 29.7 = 92.6 kilometers. This is almost 20 percent larger than Fred's 77.55.

It's not correct to say that, if we continue to go down in angle, we will find their 92-million-mile sun. Repeat from the last chapter: "As you can understand that we cannot have a line larger than .268347, try putting the solar radius (432469 miles) into the edge-a box with 92,000,000 miles in the edge-b box, to find .2693 as the angle." It's close to the angle of Fred's eclipse line of .269234 (see last chapter), and both are larger than the angular-size line, an impossibility that Fred knows of. But knowing, he still reports his umbra at a radius of 77.55 kilometers. And he loathes speaking to us of umbra-line angles to the sun because this is the key for discovering his falsifications, and also for discovering the 93-million-mile hoax. Poor Fred, going to his grave as a tool of the imposters, or worse, a leading imposter. There can be no doubt that Fred has worked with umbra-line angles to the sun. It's part-and-parcel with his job. He would have, in his possession, a triangle calculator for this task.

Fred provides the time for the first contact of the penumbra (P1) with the earth, at 23:19:20.4 pm, which is 56 minutes and 36.9 seconds before his time of 00:15:57.3 am for the first umbra contact with earth (U1). That's 56.615 minutes. As Fred's claims are that the moon was traveling 2,338 mi/hr (see last chapter) between the first and second umbra contacts, we must assume that the moon was moving at the same velocity between P1 and U1, and that velocity is 38.96666 miles per minute so that the moon supposedly traveled 38.96666 x 56.615 = 2,206.1 miles between P1 and U1. The umbra (as a whole), or more importantly, the front edge of the umbra, is expected to have traveled virtually the same distance over that same time.
http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEplot/SEplot2001/SE2016Mar09T.GIF

It tells us that, upon a vertical line through the center of the earth, there were about 2,206.1 miles (3,550.4 kilometers) between the penumbra line and the umbra line, at mid-eclipse. The penumbra radius is therefore found as 3,550.4 + umbra radius. Using Fred's 49 kilometers for the umbra radius at the center of the earth, that's a total of 3,600 kilometers. We can now draw a penumbra line to the edge of the sun with 3,600 - moon radius = 1,862 in the edge-a box, and 359,758 in edge-b, to find an angle of .296543 degree. In this triangle, line 'c' is the one from the outer edge of the penumbra to the edge of the moon (379,758 kilometers from the earth's core), and line 'b' is straight out from the earth to the same edge of the moon (that's why line 'a' amounts to the penumbra radius minus a moon radius).

We can now test how far, from earth, the penumbra line goes before it meets the umbra line, and this meeting place is where the sun is supposed to be. However, we are working on Fred's lines, and the umbra line (at .269234 degree) was found too large (impossible) to begin with, but let's see what happens, anyway. To do this, put .296543 and .269234 separately in angle-A, with 1 in edge-b, to find .005176 and .004699 respectively in edge-a. Subtracting one from the other gets .0004767 kilometers as the distance that the penumbra line will catch up to the umbra line, per mile toward the sun. We only need to know how far the two lines are at the start, and it's 1 penumbra radius + 1 umbra radius = 3,649 kilometers. We just divide the latter by .0004767 to find the sun, supposedly, at 7.65 million kilometers away (measurement starts at the earth's core). Big problem there, Fred. Where did you go wrong??? I say get the hand cuffs and lock him up until he comes clean, and then put him into the psyche ward until 93 million is completely washed from his twisted brain.

Two chapters ago: "To find how far the line will go at an angle of .269234 before it's spread by as much as a solar radius [their solar radius], enter it, along with 695,914 kilometers (= solar radius - 77.55) in the edge-a box, to find 148.1 million kilometers = 92.03 million miles. Yes, it appears that Fred has his numbers based on a computer program having 93 million built-in." In other words, his impossible umbra line, if used alone, goes to his sun, but when the same line is put side-by-side with his penumbra line, the cracks show, and the sun is only 7.65 million kilometers away. And Fred knows this because he's tried to see where the umbra line meets the penumbra line. All astronomers worth their salt have tried this. How many have spoken up? Perhaps as many as were ridiculed, demoted, and silenced.

I don't have the tools nor method to find how far off his umbra is improperly sized in comparison to his penumbra. The fact is, the closer the sun, the larger the penumbra and the smaller the umbra. They both change size in the opposite directions (whether the sun is nearer or further), but they cannot change at the same rate (proportionally). In a drawing I've just made, the penumbra doesn't appear to increase in size by as much as the umbra decreases, when the sun is brought closer to the moon. According to two chapters ago, my known fact is that Mr. Espenak has his umbra too small, wherefore the penumbra must become smaller than he has it. Until he comes clean on the true umbra and penumbra diameters, the world cannot know how far the sun truly is. It would be enough to have the umbra diameter, and then see where it meets the angular-size line.

Here's from two chapters ago again, trying to find the solar distance where the angular-size line meets Fred's eclipse line:

As we saw, Fred gives .268347 degree as the solar diameter at mid-eclipse. We can now draw two lines, one at that angle, and the other at .269234 degree. The rest of this paragraph is futile, but I'll include it because the method shows how to find the solar distance. To find the spread per kilometer toward the sun for each line, put .268347 and .269234 in the angle-A box with 1 in the edge-a box to find 213.512208 and 212.8088 kilometers of distance toward the sun, respectively, per 1 kilometer of spread. Divide 1 by 213.512208 and 212.8088 both, to find .00468357 and .004699 kilometers of spread per 1 kilometer toward the sun. We now need to subtract .004699 from .00468357, but the answer is less than zero, an impossibility. To put it another way, the lunar eclipse line at .004699 degree spreads more than the solar-size line at .00468357 degree so that the two lines will never meet, neither at the sun where they are required to meet, nor anywhere. This paragraph is useful if the eclipse line is less steep than the solar-size line.

In other words, the solar distance worked out to less than zero, showing that the umbra needs to be larger (so that there is any distance at all), where the umbra line will have less of an angle than .269234 degree. The lower the umbra-line angle, the larger the umbra at the earth's surface.

There is probably a method or calculator available to astronomers that can indicate the distance of the umbra tip from the moon, based solely on the difference between the angular sizes of the sun and moon at any eclipse. However, astronomers are not using it. Instead, they opt for the one with a 93-million-mile program. Can the distance of the tip be known where one percent of the sun is showing around the moon? Two percent? Three percent? For this calculation, it doesn't matter how large or far the sun is. The distance of the tip is found solely on the difference in size to the eye. Look at figure 2-1 (below) to see that the sun can be anywhere between the umbra lines (i.e. so long as the sun's edges are on the lines), yet the tip of the umbra will always be at the same place, and the umbra as a whole will remain unchanged.
http://www.eclipse.aaq.org.au/index.php/eclipse-information/what-are-eclipses

However, note that as the sun is moved closer to earth, while remaining between the umbra lines, the penumbra size grows. Shouldn't the experts be able to find the size and distance of the sun by these two factors combined? Yes, of course, for when one knows the umbra and penumbra size, both the solar distance and diameter can be known. To get the correct shadow sizes requires hands-on- work. People in different locations along the umbra-path line need to record how much of the sun is showing at intervals. The ones who can never see the sun (once it's fully past the moon) are in the umbra. Anyone that can see a piece of the sun, at the same time, is not in the umbra. The size of the umbra upon the earth's surface can thereby be found. People also need to record when they see the sun's edge kissing the moon, for this is the outer penumbra line. The true size of the penumbra can thereby be discovered. The ones doing the calculation can use any time at all, then find the location at the center of the umbra at that time, and from this the penumbra line on both sides of the eclipse can be found by those recording a kissing situation at the same time. Everyone (at all locations) is aiming a camera at the moon at all times, with a timer built into the cameras. Insider astronomers (the ones who are in favor of the hoax) will not do this unless they have a way to trick the people, because the sun will never work out to 93 million miles when all the correct facts are in.

The 93 million miles is not just an honest mistake, but a hoax. It's a serious endeavor to deceive all of mankind. It's well understood by astronomers that the over-blown size of the universe is part of the long war against Christianity. It is not hard for insider, leading astronomers to choose other leading astronomers from amongst the anti-God clubs of the world. Anyone on the outside who dares speak up against the 93 million is labeled a retard. But when I know that a darkened goon is calling me a retard, it bothers me nothing. The only reason they live and teach at all is due to God's wisdom in allowing them to make fools of themselves. If they were snuffed out immediately, the world would never know how far they would go in their stupidity, nor in their hatred for Him. In order for this wrong thinking to become known by all, there needs to be a revelation after a certain time, after they have made the most-utter fools of themselves. Their shame will cover them forever, and the true retard will become known. If this is a war, they started it.

In figure 2-1 of the page above, you could imagine the moon and its shadow, instead of the way they are shown, going round the earth in a perfect circle on the page. It doesn't matter which way you view it going round. I like to view it coming down from the top of the page to the position shown. Just remember, the drawing is not to scale, and the moon, over a few hours, is coming virtually straight down on the page, not on a noticeable circular path.

You can skip this paragraph if you like. Let's draw a penumbra line to the edge of the sun with 4,633.5 (earth radius - lunar radius) in the edge-a box, and 359,758 in edge-b, to find an angle of .7379 degree. This pretends that the penumbra is as wide as the earth to show that, the larger the penumbra, the closer the sun. We are still working with Fred's umbra line at .269234 degree. Put .7379 and .269234 separately in angle-A, with 1 in edge-b, to find .012879 and .004699 in edge-a. Subtracting one from the other gets .00818 kilometers as the distance that the penumbra line will catch up to the umbra line, per mile toward the sun. As the two lines start 6,470.5 kilometers apart (earth radius + umbra radius), we divide the latter by .00818 to find the sun at only 791,015 miles away. Big problem there, Fred, because it shows that you need to make the penumbra smaller than you have it, in order to get the solar distance larger than 7.65 million. But if your penumbra is made smaller, your umbra gets bigger. You need to come clean on the true umbra width. This is a war, remember, your ilk versus God, and you lose.

The times that Fred has for P1 (23:19:20.4) and P2 (01:17:40.2) are 118.0055 minutes apart. P1 is when the penumbra first contacts the edge of the earth; P2 is when the opposite side of the penumbra contacts the same edge. This period amounts to the full width/diameter of the penumbra. Again, according to Fred's U1 to U2 time frame, the lunar velocity was 2,338 mi/hr = 38.96666 miles per minute, wherefore we multiply the latter by 118.0055 to find 4,598 miles as the penumbra diameter (= only .58 the earth's diameter), at the earth's surface. Earlier, the penumbra diameter, if it could penetrate to the earth's core, was found to be 3,600 x 2 kilometers (from Fred's P1 to the middle of U1 and U2), which is equal to 4,474 miles. These two numbers, 4,598 at the surface, and 4,474 at the core, can be tested (both numbers are the result of Fred's time periods).

The difference between the two numbers is 124 kilometers. Therefore, from the penumbra line at the earth surface to the penumbra line 6,371.5 kilometers further away, there is a line decline of half of 124 kilometers, which works out to an angle of .5575 degree. But by another method above, the penumbra angle (to the moon) had worked out to only .2965 degree. The angle needs to work out the same, regardless of the method used, but here one angle is almost double the other. Once a man starts to alter the angles from the reality, things like this will show. Fred can't keep it all together, and he knows it. He knows that by changing one thing, it puts something else out of whack. Therefore, he has checked his numbers by various methods, as any normal astronomer would, and, realizing that his numbers are out of whack, he yet publishes them as truth. A man like that needs to go to jail. He feeds the world error, knowingly.

On behalf of what is he lying? There needs to be something sacred (to the man) that would make a man lie like this. It's hard for you to believe that a man would lie on this matter knowingly, if there is no realization of a purpose behind it. If the only golden rule is to be honest with mankind, and if everyone operated under that rule, it's hard to believe that Fred would do this nasty thing. But if there is an anti-God scheme in place in astronomical circles, we can expect the lies as a rule.

The P3 time (2:36:30.0 am) is when the penumbra contacts the opposite side of the earth from the P1 contact, meaning that one full earth diameter is between P1 and P3. The given time span between P1 and P3 is 197 minutes, which, at 38.96666 miles per minute works out to 7,676 miles, not very close to the diameter (7,918 miles) of the earth. He has slightly less time between P2 and P4, which is another penumbra passage over a full earth radius. The lesson here is that his velocity needs to be increased (he probably reduced it artificially = dishonestly to get the sun further away using a too-small umbra). To find the more-correct velocity: 7,918 / 197 = 40.19 miles per minute = 2,411.5 mi/hr. As this is a little faster than NASA's fastest lunar speed, and as the moon was not likely at its fastest-ever at this eclipse, we should drop the velocity significantly (probably less than 2,400 mi/hr), in which case the time of 197 minutes needs to change to a larger number. That is, it looks like Fred lowered the times from the reality. He therefore has a slower-than-true moon with less-than-true time, making the umbra smaller on two counts.

His purpose was to make the umbra seem smaller than it really was, wasn't it?

He has about 118.5 minutes between P3 and P4, as compared to 118 for P1 to P2, meaning that, as the eclipse progressed, the moon either slowed down a little, or, if it was at the same speed, the penumbra increased in size a little. In fact, the moon was building speed because it was headed for perigee the next day, wherefore Fred should have no choice but to claim that the penumbra became larger as the eclipse progressed. But the moon moves closer to the earth as it approaches perigee, wherefore the penumbra should have become smaller. The culprit, aside from Fred, looks like the times that he has provided. The time span between P3 and P4 should be less than for P1 and P2.

He has 92.6 seconds between U1 and U2, and 95.6 seconds between U3 and U4, suggesting again that the moon was slower as the eclipse progressed, or the umbra diameter increased. In fact, the umbra diameter is predicted to increase as the moon nears the earth, but, the problem is, there is a difference of 3 seconds in the two sets of times, almost 3 percent, a whopping change for such a short period of about 3.5 hours of orbital path. The moon should not near the earth much at all over 3.5 hours. Besides, he has both the umbra and penumbra growing in size in the latter half of the eclipse, an impossibility.

I've just learned that there is another method of discovering the solar distance. I'll explain this as per a drawing. Make the sun about an inch round at the left side of a page placed sideways/longways on your table. Make the moon about a 1/4 inch six inches to the right of the sun. Draw the umbra lines as far as their making a tip. No matter how near or far the sun on the day of the eclipse, it must always be with its opposite edges upon these two umbra lines. In this picture, let's say that the sun be at its furthest-possible distance.

Next, draw a second sun (call it 2a) closer to the moon. To be able to see the effect, exaggerate and make it twice as close to the moon, with its edges on the same two lines. Next, draw the first sun one inch wide like the first, twice as close to the moon (you should have two suns at the same place, one sun larger than the other), and call it 1b. Next, draw a fourth sun (2b), as wide as 2a, and twice as close to the moon (it should be 3/4 the way to the moon). Finally, draw two more sets of umbra lines (to their tips), one from the larger sun midway to the moon, and one from the smaller sun midway to the moon. You can see that the umbra tip from the smaller sun (2b) is closer to the moon than the tip from the larger sun (1b). This means that the distance between the sun and moon should be obtainable based on the specific changes in the tip distance (as the sun's distance changes from a solar-eclipse moon). There are many eclipses by which to experiment with this method, and astronomers, being smart enough to figure this method, if I can, are expected to have tried it. But we never hear about it in discussions on the solar distance.

I'm saying that, if the sun were 60 million miles away instead of 93, there would be a greater distance between the minimum and maximum umbra-tip locations. The closer the sun, the more distance between tips. Astronomers can know the maximum distance between tips, but if all they know is the maximum distance as told by an evolutionist's computer program, they know only lies. If it's impossible for them to know the minimum distance (when the tip does not reach the earth), astronomers can use the smallest-possible umbra shadow (when it kisses the earth) as the minimum. The maximum is when the umbra is the largest on the earth, and the distance of the tip can be known by a hands-on measurement of the umbra width. The locations of the minimum and maximum tips, for a sun at any distance, can be figured, even by myself, using the triangle calculator. This should be a breeze for astronomers.

Back to Mythology By Way of NASA

I asked Dave Williams, the man on NASA's fact sheet for the moon, where I could get a webpage that calculates the position (lunar distance) of the moon at any time. He gave me the following website:
http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons.cgi

Clicking to the ephemerides page, it says: "Ephemerides for planetary satellites are available from JPL's HORIZONS system. Although mean orbital elements are also available for planetary satellites, you are strongly discouraged from using them to generate your own ephemerides, as they will be highly inaccurate for many bodies. The list of planetary satellite ephemerides available via HORIZONS is available in this table." Hmm, it seems to claim that astronomers finding their own moon positions will likely be wrong, as if to discredit such work even before its done. If NASA's astronomers can discover ephemerides, why not others? Is this tending to say that only NASA's lunar positions are acceptable? Hmm.
http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?ephemerides

NASA defines "ephemeris/ephemerides" as: "An ephemeris is a tabulation of computed positions and velocities (and/or various derived quantities such as right ascension and declination) of an orbiting body at specific times." Both the positions and their velocities sounds great, yet a table is not as good as a calculator. I therefore note that NASA isn't offering its calculator. Or, at least, Dave Williams isn't offering it to me. Nor do I find any link to a calculator when loading the related pages. NASA must use a calculator that tells it the moon's position and velocity of any second for any orbit on any day. WHERE IS IT? Astronomers might want to test NASA's game. I know I do.

Clicking on the "this table" link above, we go to a page having the solar system's moons, though not the earth's moon. One can see that the moons were named predominantly after mythical characters. Jupiter's moons, instead of being given the name Juno or Hera (Zeus's official wives), were named, amongst others, Io and Europa, two of Zeus' main mates in adultery. Other moons of Jupiter include Amalthea, the bee and goat goddess that looked after the infant Zeus on Crete, where the Tyrians lived whom myth writers mythicized as Zeus and Europa. After years of seeking the demonic cults around Zeus, I tracked their roots from Amorites of Jerusalem, Hebron, and the Jordan river to Phoenicia, and eventually discovered that the 600 Benjamites in the Book of Judges founded the Romans with 400 wives of Jabesh-Gilead (Jordan river).

Prior to this discovery, someone (who delved into some of the same areas as I) had said to me that "AMOR" is "ROMA" backward, yet this was not anything I accepted as fact. When I came to discover some heavy evidence for the formation of Romans from Jabesh-Gilead, what that emailer said to me was NOT on my mind at all. She had some other wild ideas that I rejected, yet, one by one, many of them proved true. I found this amazing. And she said to me more than once, "I told you so." The idea of writing backward was a satanic thing, and perhaps "Rome" was created by such an occultic method. Perhaps the satanic cults needed a way to disguise themselves as they migrated from place to place, fresh into the lands of others and vulnerable. Mythology definitely became a method of disguising their movements. Myth terms and themes, especially the names of mythical characters, were nothing but codes for people groups that surrounded the Zeus cults. AMALthea was thought by be to be code for the evil and Biblical AMALekites.

The Amalekites were defeated by king David, and he is the one who conquered Jerusalem and Zion for the first time on behalf of Israel. The Bible says that JEBUSites lived in Jerusalem at the time, and so it seemed evident that Jebusites named JABESH (in Gilead). I came to realize that "JUPITer" and "JAPODes" was a term developed from the people who named Jabesh, as they moved afterward through the Greek empire, and it just so happens that the land of the tribe of Benjamin was smack to the north side of Jerusalem.

The myth writers assigned the founding of Illyrians to Cadmus, Europa's brother, and we can glean that the Zeus-cult Tyrians were none other than part-and-parcel with Cadmus, for the myth writers said that he followed a bull (code for Zeus because he was made a bull when he raped Europa) to found Thebes (central Greece). After the moon, Amalthea, the moon of Jupiter is listed as Thebe.

Japodes lived in Illyrium, between the Colapis and Una rivers. The Etruscans, part of the Romans to some degree, called their major goddess, Ina. The Romans called her Juno, which we can glean to be Iuno (possibly an extension of an Io cult), a term developed from "Una." That is, the namers of the Una river became mythicized as Juno, Jupiter's wife, and Jupiter was code for some branch of the Japodes that came to live at Rome. Cadmus was given a daughter, Ino, who looks applicable to the Iuno part of the Una's inhabitants.

The Una river is at times called the Oeneus, and mythical Oeneus (a ruler of Calydon / Aetolia) was made the father of the Greek city of Methoni. You can find mythical Methone as one of the moons of Saturn. In myth, Saturn is generally identified with the Greek Cronus, Zeus' father, which is why Rhea, Zeus' mother and Cronus' wife, is a moon of Saturn too. In fact, the Methone moon is in the table (above) smack beside Iapetus, or JAPETus, code, very apparently, for the Japodes. It shows that Japodes were intimate with the namers of the Oeneus river, and that Greeks from Methoni were on that river.

It was my assessment that Aetolia named Italia, and that this was from the term, ATLas, chief son of Poseidon, the latter being a mainline, satanic Tyrian people that were made Zeus' chief brother. I identified "Atlas" with Antalya, otherwise called, Attaleia, in the land of Pisidians (south-western Anatolia), the obvious Poseidon cult, to the west side of the Taurus mountains that were mythicized as the Zeus Taurus, the one that raped Europa and founded certain Cretans thereby (a myth is not true history, but a fanciful digest of it). In the Bible, Tyre -- anciently TYRUS -- is said to be a daughter of TARSus, which is to the south of the TAURUS mountains. We get it. And Tarsus was a chief city of CILICia, which was mythicized as CILIX, Cadmus' brother. There is no escaping it: the Tyrians moved around the corner of Syria into Cilicia and all around Attaleia, probably before they entered Greece.

While Cadmus was placed chiefly at Thebes (home of a bee goddess (Melia) that married the founder of Argos, where Io was goddess), Zeus was placed chiefly to the north, at mount Olympus. There was another Olympus beside Attaleia, and yet another one in Elis. The latter's first mythical kings were connected by myth writers to the kings of Aetolia, and the latter was the realm of mythical Oeneus i.e. the proto-Juno. It's not likely coincidental that Etruscans are also called, TYRRhenians.

CadMUS was gleaned as code for the Mus area of ancient Lake Van in Armenia. Mus was also called, TARUN, an apt term for TYRRHENians so that one may start to glean that Tyrians were possibly originated at Mus and Tarun. I gleaned that "Van" was mythical Pan, the goat-son of Hermes. I had read that Pan named the city of Panias (Phoenicia), at the foot of mount Hermon (like "Hermes"), but I knew it was the other way around, that Pan was code for the namers of Panias. And so I traced the Armenians from Van to Panias and Hermon, especially due to a nearby, main city of the Phoenicians, KADISH, which smacks of "CADUCeus," the name that Greeks gave for Hermes' special rod. There was an actual Armenian peoples called, Cadusii," you see, and so it became obvious that CADmus was a Cadusii mix with Armenians from Mus. It's not coincidental that Hermes' caduceus was transferred by another myth writer to TIRESias, code for some Tyrians, obviously, around mount Hermon. It was years after making this trace that I found a city of Daphne smack beside Panias (it's called by the same name to this day), and mythical Daphne was actually made the daughter of Tiresias.

I identified Tiresias as the Hyksos Hebrews, NOT to be confused, as some have, with the Israelite-branch Hebrews. The main Armenian god, Hyke/Haik, was likely responsible for "HYKsos." Mythical Daphne is usually given the Ladon river as her Greek home, which was at the Elis theater. Mythical Ladon was made her alternative father for this reason, but why was Ladon given 100 heads of a dragon? Where did this dragon code come from if not the dragon that Cadmus slew as he founded Thebes? Next to the Ladon river, the Peneus river smacks of "Panias," as though the Tyrians (or Armenians) at Panias moved it over to the Peneus and Ladon rivers. These rivers were between Arcadia, the official Greek birthplace of Hermes, and the Taphian pirates of Aetolia. It becomes clear that Daphne was named after the same that named Taphians, and that the Daphne-branch Tyrians were over in Aetolia, where the proto-Romans were living as Oeneus. It then becomes clear, from this and other considerations (trust me), that the Ladon river was named by the same group of peoples that named Lydians and later the Latins. The region of the Latins was Lazio (still is today), and this smacks of the Lasonii peoples (same area as Lydians), part-tribe with Pisidians that named Pisa at Elis.

Yes, for, in myth, Pelops, king of Lydia, was made to marry the queen of Pisa, and her father was OENOmaus, what looks like part code for Oeneus in Aetolia, and part code for the Mus entity...that I say named Messene, the Greek area where we find the city of Methoni i.e. Oeneus' daughter. Pelops' father, TANTALus, looks like it may have been word-play on Attaleia's alternative name, ANTALya. In Latin, "tanto" means "many, and Tantalus with Pelops together were given the myth code, many. In the same way, Ladon had many heads.

Oenomaus, whom must be of the peoples from Jabesh-Gilead, was assigned a chariot code and is therefore suspect as a Hyksos tribe, for, they say, the Hyksos introduced the chariot into Africa. Plus, Oenomaus' daughter (Pelops' wife), was given a horse symbol in her very name. The Hyksos had ruled Egypt from Tanis and AVARIS, and some say they retreated from war to Jerusalem, though this was long before Israelites lived at Jerusalem. The Hyksos thus become highly suspect as the ugly guts of the Zeus cult, though there are other reasons to equate them. Tiresias' father was EVERES, obvious code for AVARIS, so that Hyksos are revealed as becoming the Tyrians mentioned earlier. It's very interesting that a mainline historian on the Hyksos, Manetho, has a name like Manto, a mythical daughter of Tiresias. As Manto was Daphne's sister, just peg the Hyksos at Daphne and Panias.

To this we must add that Panias was from Lake Van = Mus, and that a Meshwesh peoples had ruled Egypt after the Hyksos were removed. Wikipedia says that the Meshwesh were Libyans, but that was after they had ruled Egypt starting at the 21st dynasty. The Meshwesh ruled from Tanis. When I came to learn that Tanis was on or beside the PELUSiac branch of the Nile delta, it struck me that this was mythical Belas or BELUS, father of DANAUS, and that the latter was named after TANIS. If you are familiar with Phoenician mythology, you might know that Danaus was linked intimately (by ancients) to the family of Poseidon and Cadmus. In myth, Danaus, known code for the Danaans, ruled at Argos, where Io was goddess, yet at least one myth writer had the proto-Danaans at Joppa (see Perseus), a Jupiter/Japodes-like term. Note that EURopa ("opa" is a common Greek suffix) translated to EBRopa, what looks like it had roots in EBER, founder of all Hebrews (Israelites were only one tribe of many Hebrews).

Having said this, let's add that BAAL was a bull cult so that one can glean an evolution of Baal from Belas stupids (warlocks) on the Pelusiac into Zeus, but also into Io, for while Zeus was made a white bull, Io was made a white cow. So, we have the Hyksos Hebrews evolving into Io at Argos, followed later by the Danaans from Tanis, explaining why Zeus was made the father of Danaans. Io was made the ancestor of Libyans, which implies the Meshwesh Libyans...that may have named Mycenae (at Argos). The mythical character responsible for the Libyans along with Io was EPAPHUS (son of Zeus and Io), whom I identified with the Hyksos king, APOPHIS (or Apepi). Epaphus' alternative name, Apis, is known to be the Egyptian bull cult, yet "apis" to the Italians, and "opis" to the Greeks, means "bee," which should explain how Zeus got entangled with the bee cult of Crete.

Zeus and Europa gave birth to the Minoan branch of Cretans, and these were traced to the Minyae/Minyans of the mount-Olympus area, the people to which Jason of the Argo ship belonged. There has got to be a reason that his ship was named like the city of Argos, and then Jason's father was from IOlcus, suggesting that peoples of the Io entity named that city. The Minyae worshipped horses, and were likely from the Egyptian Min...as Egyptians carrying his name went through Tyre to Crete's Minoans. Jason's ancestor was TYRo, and Tyro's father was CRETHeus, obvious code for Tyrians of CRETE. Some say that the Biblical Minni is the Mannae area of Armenia.

Iolcis was in the general area of mythical IXion (chariot-wheel symbol), whom I identify with "HYKsos." But I also see "IXION" as code for "SION," for the peak of mount Hermon was named, Sion, and Jebusites lived at Zion (southern Jerusalem). I reasoned that these terms became "DIOn," the alternative Greek name of Zeus. Ixion was not only paired with Hera, Zeus's wife, but with Dia, a feminine form of "Dio(n)." Thus, it appears that the term, dio = god was related to, or even rooted in, "Zion," but in no way do I confuse this satanic God of Amorites / Jebusites with the God of Israel. Baal was worshiped at Jerusalem and Zion, and Baal was detested by the true God. The true God set up shop at Zion, via David the Branch to Messiah, to fight the Zeus cult to the last day. David's conquering of Zion was a sign of things to come at Armageddon, when the Branch appears with terrifying lightning, the symbol of Zeus.

A mythical king (Athamus) of Boeotia was made married to both Nephele and Ino, suggesting a relationship between Jebusites / Jabesh and Nephele, mother of the centaurs (= horse code). The father of centaurs was Ixion (wheel symbol) so that this spells a trace of the Zeus Hyksos to Boeotia, which is where Thebes is found, but also home to Melia (honey symbol), wife of Inachus, founder of Argos. I did not resolve whether INAchus was an Ino entity, or something of an Inach / Inak entity. The Biblical Anak, of Hebron's Amorites, came to mind.

Thebes was home to the dragon of Ares, a war god (horse symbol) that was likely from Ara, the second highest god of Armenia, and likely from the Aras river of Armenia, explaining why Ares' daughter, HARMONIA, looks like "ARMENIA." Cadmus married Harmonia in Thebes, all-the-more reason to view him as code for Mus Armenians. JereVAN looks partly names after VAN, for indeed, lake SeVAN is said to be named after Van while Jerevan is on the south-west side of lake Sevan. But I identify the namers of JEREvan as HERA (Zeus's wife), and then Nephele, when she was Ixion's mate, was made a copy of Hera. There is reason here to virtually equate "Hera" with "Ares" (son of Zeus) so that in essence Ares had been named after a war-loving peoples of Jerusalem.

By what coincidence did the Greeks call JERusalem, HIEROsolyma? It looks like Hera was code for JERusalemites from JERevan. A mile or so from Jerusalem was mount GAREB, like "JEREVan." And Jerevan is at SODUCena, like "ZEDEK," the name of Jerusalem (when it was ruled by Amorites). I might view these fair comparisons as mere coincidences, yet "Dion" and Zion" also look like they can be equated, and the pseudo-Zeus, IXION, was paired with Dia (his official wife) as well as Hera.

I had always been stumped on the origin of Ra (same as named Rhea?), the Egyptian sun god, until I found Ara of Armenia. This gave opportunity to identify Ra as an Aras-river cult. I then reflected on "Horus" (the special son of Ra) and realized that he was likely named after a Hros peoples that had lived in Caucasia, for one. Even to the Scandinavians, "hross" means "horse," so that our "horse" looks rooted in Horus. Ares was given a son, Eros, what looks like the Hros entity. In Lake Van, a set of kings were named, Rusa, when the Cimmerians ruled the city about a century before Ezekiel prophesied against "Rosh." He identified Rosh with Meshech and Tubal, both to the west of Armenia (see Wikipedia's Tabal article).

Meshech were in the Moschi(an) mountains between Rize (Ares entity?) and Sevan, suggesting the possibility that Mus was named after a branch of Meshech. Meshech was a Biblical man, son of Japheth, the latter looking like "Japodes/Jupiter." Japheth was a son of Noah, fresh off the ark in Ararat, smack at the Van / Sevan theater. The Meshwesh of Africa were also "Mazyes", while a Maezaei peoples were on the Una river i.e. beside the Japodes. The Maezaei were also on the URBANus river, and I ended up tracing the name of that river, with good evidence, to ORBA, in Cilicia i.e. where the Tabali had their empire. Original Freemasonry is from the Maezaei.

Wikipedia claims that Meshwesh were one and the same the Amazons, who had a capital at Mazaca (later Caesarea), smack beside the Tabal empire. That empire was situated about the Taurus mountains of Anatolia, but there was a second Taurus region in the Crimea, home of the Cimmerians that came to rule Lake Van. We are definitely talking about aspects of Gog here (see Gogarene to the east side of lake Sevan (called Lychnis) on the map at link above).

Why did the astronomers give names to the moons of planets after mythical characters? Certainly, they were not Christians for this. Like the creators of myths, evolutionists were of satan. The same demons infested both. Make no mistake about it, demons are in the minds of avid / activist evolutionists. This was the forefront of the war against Jesus about as soon as men got the telescope. Instead of seeing God through the telescope, the front-runners of astronomy saw a universe devoid of Him. It's what the demons told them. They saw the perfection of moons in orbit, one discovery after the other, and yet the darkened goons said that moons naturally find orbits via cosmic evolution. This is NASA today, a stench of the human race wishing for your respect undeservedly. Astronomers have lumped the planetary moons in with the satanic gods. We are all reminded of them whenever we hear the names of the moons, and these gods are given respect thereby.

I mailed Dave Williams back saying that the ephemerides package he sent didn't look like it could work easily for me. I asked him for a simple calculator, as well as the smallest and largest angular sizes of the moon, which I suggested he place on the fact sheet for the convenience of all. I also asked him to replace the approximated nearest and furthest lunar distances with precise figures.

As the furthest distance, the fact sheet now has 407,000 kilometers. Put this into the edge-b box with the lunar radius (1738.1) in edge-a to find the angle of .244681 degree. Multiply the latter by 60 to get arc-minutes, then multiply by two to get the angular size of 29.36. Online, there are both 29.3 and 29.43 for the smallest angular size.

Correctly, the angular size should be from the earth surface, wherefore, instead of entering 407,000, enter 6,371.4 kilometers less, which gets an angle of .248572 degree = 29.82 arc-minutes (when multiplied by 2). We have no consistency. NASA is failing the world.

When we enter .2441666 degree (= 29.3 arc-minutes) with 1738.1, the maximum lunar distance comes to 407,857, which no one would round off as 407,000. When we enter .24525 degree (= 29.43 arc-minutes) along with 1738.1, the maximum lunar distance is 406,056, which no one would round off as 407,000. What's going on, NASA? Have you been changing the lunar distance over the years? Who is above your authority to which you hearken? Does he have horns and a red-tipped tail? Is it confusion / uncertainty that you wish to sow on his behalf?

The 407,000 is from the core of the earth. No one can take a telescopic measurement of the moon from there. All we have to go by is the math, but then we can't verify whether the lunar distance in the math is accurate. But astronomers can measure the moon's size from the earth's surface, and so we should have accurate sizes online for these, but I cannot find one. NOT ONE. Is there a gag order on this from the big-cheese astronomers? IF WE HAD THE APPARENT SIZE OF THE MOON measured from the earth's surface, WE WOULD ALSO KNOW THE DISTANCE TO THE MOON (so long as the true, stated lunar diameter is correct). As it is, I cannot trust that the 1896 arc-seconds = 31.6 arc-minutes (the mean size) on the fact sheet is from an actual measurement.

As the nearest lunar distance, the fact sheet now has 357,000 kilometers. With this in the edge-b box and 1738.1 in edge-a, the angle is found as .2789496 = 33.474 arc-minutes, close to the online 33.5. But we can't even bother to find whether 31.6 is the middle number between 33.5 and 29.3, or the middle between 33.5 and 29.43, because it's apples and oranges. The 31.6, as Dave confirms, is a measurement from the surface of the earth, while none of the other three numbers are taken from the surface. We must therefore convert 33.5 to whatever it is from the surface; we put 350,628.6 instead in edge-b with 1738.1 in edge-a to find .2840184 degree = 34.08 arc-minutes.

We then need to do the same to 29.3. and 29.43 scenarios, and finally check whether 31.6 is the middle number between either one and 34.08. For the 29.3 scenario, we need to feed edge-b with 6,371.4 less than 407,857. When done, we find an angle of .2480417 = 29.765 arc-minutes. The middle number between the latter and 34.08 is 31.92. No good.

For the 29.43 scenario, we need to feed edge-b with 6,371.4 less than 406,056. When done, we find an angle of .2491594 = 29.9 arc-minutes. The middle number between the latter and 34.08 is 31.99. No good. Will Dave send me NASA's figures for the minimum and maximum angular sizes, or is there something to hide? He claimed that 31.6 is the mean number used by all who respect the astronomical unit of 93 million miles. Yet, the middle number between 407,000 and 357,000 is 382,000, not even close to 384,402, the latter being NASA's number that conforms to 31.6. That is, 384,402 - the earth radius = 378,030.5 kilometers, which, when fed to the triangle calculator, with 1738.1, gets .26343137 degree = 15.80588 arc-minutes, or 31.6117 when multiplied by 2 to get the angular size. Side by side, the fact sheet (at this time) has: "Distance from Earth (equator, km) 378,000 [and] Apparent diameter (seconds of arc) 1896 [= 31.6 arc-minutes]."
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/moonfact.html

Someone might argue that 31.6 and 378,000 are the middle of the mean perigee and mean apogee distances, not the middle of the nearest-ever and furthest-ever. But then here's Fred Espenak: "Earth varies with mean values of 363,396 km at perigee to 405,504 km at apogee." Just look at that precision, yet the middle number is 384,450, 48 kilometers too large. Is there an explanation for this? Why are others using different numbers for the mean perigee and apogee? Are lunar distances still "under construction"? Are Fred's numbers new in an effort to conform better to 384,402? Someone else online uses nearly Fred's mean for the nearest-ever: "The short answer is, the average distance to the Moon is 384,403 km (238,857 miles)...At its closest point (known as perigee) the Moon is only 363,104 km (225,622 miles) away. And at its most distant point (called apogee) the Moon gets to a distance of 406,696 km.

How can anyone use such precision if the distances are yet not decided with finality? If they don't know for sure, why not say so? No one says so, for the true distances are easily obtainable using the angular sizes, yet there is disagreement and inconsistency all over this topic. In order to find the true size of the moon, its angular size gets involved in so-called parallax measurements. Precision is needed to get the true size, wherefore what excuse do they have for not knowing the correct angular sizes?

If we remove an earth radius from Fred's mean-perigee of 363,396, it gets 357,024 (almost the fact sheet's 357,000, yet the latter is said to be the nearest-ever). Removing an earth radius from 405,504 gets 392,761 (= 30.426 arc-minutes), which, when added to 357,024 and divided by two, gets a middle number of 374,892, more than 3,000 kilometers smaller than NASA's 378,000. There is nothing here of any help.

Dave provided me with a moon-orbit calculator using "ephemerides." It's Greek to me. I haven't got the spare months to digest and understand this page, but here it is in case you do:
http://exoplanetarchive.ipac.caltech.edu/docs/transit_algorithms.html

Notice that the page has NO LINK to a moon-orbit calculator, just as though NASA doesn't want amateur astronomers fiddling around with moon orbits, or testing them against NASA's eclipse pages. It's clear to me that NASA's eclipse pages are erroneous so that I already know why NASA doesn't want me to find a moon-orbit-calculator page that is simple, and makes sense to me in short order. All I want is to know is: 1) where NASA claims that the moon was on a certain time of the day, any day, and; 2) where the moon actually was at that time. NASA has this information recorded as it has recorded it, and even has a calculator to provide the results at the click of a button. But why wouldn't it be obtainable on the page above???

[When asking Dave for something better, he provided the page below, which I'll elaborate on further at the end of the next chapter.
http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/geocentric.php]

Here is the fact. One can take the apparent/angular size of the sun on a lunar-eclipse page from NASA, and from that alone, based on the solar distance that the apparent size amounts to (same triangle-method as used above for the moon), one can find the angle of the earth-shadow line(s). If one then has the distance to the moon on that same day, a thing that NASA DOES NOT provide on the eclipse pages (??? = SUSPICIOUS), one can also find how wide the earth shadow was where the moon crossed it. One can then expose NASA's fraud because NASA gives two or three methods on its eclipse pages for calculating the earth-shadow diameter.

Also, if one has the lunar distance on the day of a solar eclipse, or at the very minute of a solar eclipse, one can find the solar distance using the umbra and penumbra lines together, which will serve to expose NASA's fraud in that regard (the lines will not reach a sun positioned 93 million miles away). The solar and lunar distances together at any one time will expose the impossibility of the solar distance claimed by NASA. I know how to expose it, and all I need is their claimed lunar distances for eclipses. It's the one thing I need, and it's the one thing never on their eclipse pages. Demand from NASA their lunar distances for eclipses!

When I wrote Dave Williams, I used my tribwatch email account so that he may have gone to my site, clicked the updates link at the top of the page, and then found my anti-NASA material...because I wrote him when the last chapter was at the top of the page.

In the next chapter (next week), I'll examine a hybrid eclipse from Fred Espenak, showing where he has incorrect data, and asking the reasons. It serves well to show that the sun is not 93 million miles away.

NEXT UPDATE