Mysteries :  The Official GrahamHancock.com forums
For serious discussion of the controversies, approaches and enigmas surrounding the origins and development of the human species and of human civilization. (NB: for more ‘out there’ posts we point you in the direction of the ‘Paranormal & Supernatural’ Message Board). 
Welcome! Log InRegister
We hear that two astronomers, named Fairall and Krupp, claim that the vernal equinox in 10,500 BC was in Virgo, or at least was closer to Virgo than to Leo.
...
Sorry, they're mistaken.
...
That's easily demonstrated:
...
Search Google for "Precession of the Equinoxes". At or near the top of the resulting website list will be a Wikipedia page called "Axial Precession".
...
There, scroll down, past the Equations section, to the next section, which gives a formula for accumulated precession, and a formula for the precession-rate--both as functions of time before or after 2000 AD, expressed in Julian centuries (T is negative for dates before 2000 AD).
...
According to that webpage, the precession-rate is increasing, and has been for some time. The precession-rate varies cyclically, as does the obliquity, because the average gravitational pull on the Earth's equatorial bulge, by the Sun, Moon and planets, varies cyclically.
...
If the current precession-rate obtained all the time, it would result in a precessional period of 25,772 years, according to that webpage.
...
Various websites state that currently the precession-rate is increasing at its fastest, and that precession and obliquity are near their middle values.
...
Now, look at any star-map that shows the celestial equator and the ecliptic.You'll notice that those 2 lines intersect just slightly to the left (east) of the constellation Leo. That intersection is the autumnal equinox.
...
The autumnal equinox is directly opposite the vernal equinox. In other words, the autumnal equinox is half of a precessional cycle away from the vernal equinox.
...
That means that, half of a precessional cycle ago, the vernal equinox was where the autumnal equinox now is.
...
Now, I said that the precession-rate has been increasing during the past 12,000 years. So the average precession-rate during that time was less than the current precession-rate. That means that, 12,000 years ago, teh precession had to have been farther along, and the vernal equinox must have been farther westward, than it would have been if the current precession-rate had always obtained.
...
So, if we pretend that the precession always had its current rate, then that assumption will make it look as if the vernal equinox of 10,500 BC was farther east than it really was--farther toward Virgo, and farther from Leo.
...
That assumption favors Fairall's claim that the vernal equinox was in Virgo in 10,500 BC. So let's make that incorrect Fairall-favoring assumption. Let's assume that the precession always had its current rate. Then:
...
Half of a precessional cycle is 25,772 years divided by 2. That's 12,886 years.
...
So, 12,886 years before 2000, the vernal equinox was where the autumnal equinox now is.
...
In other words, in 10,886 BC, the vernal equinox was where the autumnal equinox now is.
...
But we're talking about 10,500 BC. That's 386 years after 10,886 BC.
...
At the current precession-rate, of 360 degrees per 25,772 years, 386 years amounts to 5.4 degrees of precession.
...
Verify that by multiplying 360 by (386 divided by 25,772).
...
So, in 10,500 BC, the vernal equinox was 5.4 degrees west, as measured along the ecliptic, from the autumnal equinox's current position.
...
That's a lot closer, in ecliptic longitude, to Leo than to Virgo.
...
Let me suggest a good map on which to measure that:
...
Search Google for "Sidereal ecliptic longitude". At or near the top of the list will be a website called "Co-ordinates for Constellations", authored by John Pratt, an astronomer. Go to that website.
...
Once there, scroll down until you reach Pratt's map of Leo.
...
That map is particularly useful for our purpose, because it shows Leo, and at least the western part of Virgo, the part that's near Leo
...
Additionally, that map's ecliptic is marked in degrees of ecliptic longitude.
...
So, from the autumnal equinox (the intersection of the celestial equator and the equinox), measure 5.4 degrees westward (toward the right) along the ecliptic. That's where the vernal equinox was in 10,500 BC.
...
You'll notice that it was a lot closer to Leo than to Virgo.
...
And that's based on the incorrect, Fairall-favoring assumption that the precession-rate always had its current value. Actually, because the average precession-rate over the past 12,000 years was less than the current precession-rate, the vernal equinox of 10,500 BC was really even farther west (rightward) than that--it was even closer to Leo, and farther from Virgo.
...
That's enough to show conclusively that Fairall was mistaken when he said that the vernal equinox was in Virgo in 10,500 BC, or was closer to Virgo than to Leo.
...
Just to clarify my position:

1. Hancock was right when he suggested that the Giza Lion Statue (usually referred to as the Sphinx) may very well have been sculpted during the Age of Leo.
...
Sure, the Pharohs were building things all over the place, and they're the obvious first candidate for building the Lion Statue. But geologists are divided on the matter of whether the statue could have been made that recently, based on erosion evidence. So it's far from certain that the Pharohs made the statue.
...
Additionally, the statue's pharoh-head is very disproportionately small for its lion-body. That suggests that the statue was made before the pharohs re-carved the head in their own likeness. The erosion-doubt lends some support to that possibility.
...
The fact that the statue is looking due east, at the equinox sunrise, and is shaped like a lion, suggests the intriguing possibility that it was made during the Age of Leo, the time when the vernal equinox was in Leo.
...
By "Leo Proper", I refer to Leo's sickle and right-triangle, which look just like a Lion in the upright-resting position--the Giza Lion Statue's position.
...
Some argue that the Pleistocene or early Holocene people there wouldn't have perceived those stars to resemble a lion, because the Leo constellation arrived with the later Greek and Roman presence. But, as i said, those stars look a lot like a lion in the upright-resting position. Look at a diagram of Leo, and a side-view of the Lion Statue, side-by-side.
...
Sure, it can't be known. Maybe the Pharohs made the statue, and, unaccountably, decided to give it a very small head (but how likely is it that they'd want to portray themselves disproportionatly small?). But there's a very good likelihood that the Giza Lion Statue was, instead, made during the Age of Leo.
...
Allowing for the proper motions of Epsilon Leonis and Beta Leonis (the outermost stars of Leo's sickle and right triangle), and using Wikipedia's quadratic approximation to accumulated precession, the vernal equinox was in "Leo Proper" from 10,772 BC to around 8300 BC.
...
By "in Leo Proper", I mean "Having ecliptic longitude between those of Epsilon Leonis and Beta Leonis".

2. Graham Hancock was right to say that there were people, as long ago as 10,000 BC or 11,000 BC, who had the organization, technology, motivation and will, to build things that would surprise archaeologists (at the time when Hancock first made the suggestion.
...
But Gobleki Tepe, and similar places around the Fertile Crescent, show that non-sedentary pre-pottery prehistoric hunter-gatherers, even in those Pleistocene days, _did_ have everything that it takes to build some amazing and impressive things, and could have built the Giza Lion Statue too.
...
And the walled city of Jericho is an example of what people were capable of building in 9500 BC.
...
So Hancock was right about that--But it isn't necessary to assume a prehistoric high-tech modern-style civilization to build such amazing things as the Giza Lion Statue, Gobekli Tepe, and Jericho. Neolithic or Upper Paleolithic people, in the Pleistocene or beginning Holocene epoch are now known to have been a lot more capable than archaeologists used to believe.
...
3. I personally don't subscribe to Hancock's lost high-tech civilization, because a) Neolithic or Upper Paleolithic people are now known to have been capable of building amazing things; and b) Hancock's civilization would have left a lot more signs--and they aren't there.
...
If _we_ wanted to conceal our existence from future generations, consider how difficult that would be. It would be impossible. There'd be unmistakeable evidence of their high-tech civilization, and there aren't any.

4. I don't know about the Orion correlation. I've heard that it isn't so precisse after-all, and that it needs poetic license. I've heard that it's upside-down...etc I don't take a position one way or the other about it, but it doesn't convince me, and it isn't nearly as intriguing and plausible as the Lion Statue/Leo connection.
...
But the Lion Statue could very well have been built from 8300 BC to nearly 11,000 BC, judging by what other prehistoric people have built.



Post Edited (07-Dec-14 20:34)

Options: ReplyQuote


Subject Views Written By Posted
Correcting Fairall & Krupp: 10,500 BC Vernal Equinox was in Leo 392 BeAccurate 20-Nov-14 19:14
Mod Note > BeAccurate – Links 135 Dr. Troglodyte 20-Nov-14 19:29
Re: Debunking Fairall: 10,500 BC Vernal Equinox wasn't in Virgo 113 Skatha 21-Nov-14 04:08
Re: Debunking Fairall: 10,500 BC Vernal Equinox wasn't in Virgo 307 BeAccurate 22-Nov-14 01:42
Re: Debunking Fairall: 10,500 BC Vernal Equinox wasn't in Virgo 209 drew 22-Nov-14 06:41
Re: Debunking Fairall: 10,500 BC Vernal Equinox wasn't in Virgo 202 BeAccurate 22-Nov-14 17:23
Re: Debunking Fairall: 10,500 BC Vernal Equinox wasn't in Virgo 260 drew 23-Nov-14 04:12
Re: Debunking Fairall: 10,500 BC Vernal Equinox wasn't in Virgo 554 BeAccurate 23-Nov-14 13:14
Re: Debunking Fairall: 10,500 BC Vernal Equinox wasn't in Virgo 269 drew 23-Nov-14 23:12
Re: Debunking Fairall: 10,500 BC Vernal Equinox wasn't in Virgo 194 BeAccurate 24-Nov-14 01:46
Re: Debunking Fairall: 10,500 BC Vernal Equinox wasn't in Virgo 136 BeAccurate 24-Nov-14 13:44
Re: Debunking Fairall: 10,500 BC Vernal Equinox wasn't in Virgo 183 BeAccurate 24-Nov-14 02:50
Re: Debunking Fairall: 10,500 BC Vernal Equinox wasn't in Virgo 123 BeAccurate 24-Nov-14 13:48
Re: Debunking Fairall: 10,500 BC Vernal Equinox wasn't in Virgo 198 BeAccurate 24-Nov-14 18:21
Re: Debunking Fairall: 10,500 BC Vernal Equinox wasn't in Virgo 205 drew 26-Nov-14 11:56
Re: Debunking Fairall: 10,500 BC Vernal Equinox wasn't in Virgo 176 BeAccurate 26-Nov-14 14:03


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.