As promised, I also want to run a reasonable test on the RA issue.
The problem is that if you keep sending me 20,000 messages a day in the meantime, I’m never going to get it done. 😂😂😂
You already know I’m slow with these things, just look at how long it took me to do the test on the Della Monica envelope. 😄
In the evening, if all goes well, I can usually carve out about an hour. If I spend that entire hour replying to new posts, the RA test will inevitably keep getting pushed back.
So on this point I would rather take the necessary time and try to build a sensible test, in the same spirit as the one I did for the zodiac sequence, although I think I’ve understood that we have rather different views on that test, rather than replying impressionistically to every single detail.
On the 72 − 35 step, though, I think the logic is different from the way you are presenting it.
I am not starting from the result and saying, “I am missing an L, so let me find a way to produce one.”
The compositor is, under the hypothetical, though. Up until this point he hasn’t needed an ‘L’, for any reason.
“This isn’t right! It’s not even wrong!”—Wolfgang Pauli (1900–1958)
Those letters are derived directly from a table built from zodiac signs. So if we want to check whether the resulting sequence contains a second layer of meaning, ZODIAC is the most natural reference to test.
Nonsense. This is mere confirmation bias at work.
“This isn’t right! It’s not even wrong!”—Wolfgang Pauli (1900–1958)
I am not introducing two lunar shifts because I need an I and a C.
The compositor, under the hypothetical, is though. There has to be some reason why specific changes are sought and this reason has to be directed to the goal he has in mind.
“This isn’t right! It’s not even wrong!”—Wolfgang Pauli (1900–1958)
I am not saying that this proves the author made those choices intentionally in order to create a second layer.
It has to be this.
“This isn’t right! It’s not even wrong!”—Wolfgang Pauli (1900–1958)
Anyway, there you have it.
“This isn’t right! It’s not even wrong!”—Wolfgang Pauli (1900–1958)
In the evening, if all goes well, I can usually carve out about an hour. If I spend that entire hour replying to new posts, the RA test will inevitably keep getting pushed back.
You’re ok from here on out, dear Lendor. I’m done now. I’m just wasting both our times.
“This isn’t right! It’s not even wrong!”—Wolfgang Pauli (1900–1958)
So on this point I would rather take the necessary time and try to build a sensible test, in the same spirit as the one I did for the zodiac sequence, although I think I’ve understood that we have rather different views on that test, rather than replying impressionistically to every single detail.
And this is how we identify confirmation bias in our own work.
The definitive tests have been done already and the results presented here. They conclusively demonstrate that any second layer construction is devoid of the necessary freedoms to demonstrate intention on the author’s part and that the astrological purpose defines the artefact completely. You have not welcomed these findings, I understand that. But, without having demonstrated the analyses (multiple) leading to the same conclusion again and again to be fundamentally flawed in some way, you are yet choosing to seek some ‘other’ test that, somehow, will produce a different result; as if valid tests are perfectly capable of reaching contrary conclusions. This, I’m afraid, is precisely confirmation bias—merely skipping over a swathe of data and demonstrations that negate your premise whilst persisting with the search for others that might apparently support it.
This is why I have no motivation to continue, as there is no purpose nor point in trying to counter bias. We should either reason cleanly and freely, setting aside bias, or find something more profitable to do.
It was fun at the beginning, merely working out the method under which the table was actually constructed. This was probably because it drew me into an area of expertise I was already proficient in. I still am nervous, however, that if ever I were able to continue I might be faced yet again with confronting the resurrection of “sidereal times,” and I definitely don’t have the stomach for that. 🤓
“This isn’t right! It’s not even wrong!”—Wolfgang Pauli (1900–1958)
As a parting gesture in the spirit of “helping,” I would encourage you to spend some considerable time with this post and its explanatory supplement in the following post. This is not a new argument. It formed part of the original analysis way back at the beginning of this lengthy diversion. You do, still, appear to be stuck on not having digested this key point.
“This isn’t right! It’s not even wrong!”—Wolfgang Pauli (1900–1958)
Shaq also believes that the values shown there are not sidereal times.
They are not sidereal times. Trust me.
Adding these just for completeness.
“This isn’t right! It’s not even wrong!”—Wolfgang Pauli (1900–1958)
The following should also be useful and is worth adding in retrospect, being just a different presentation of the data from the last of the two previous figures.
The coloured spokes give the mean solar RAs corresponding to the murder events, the coloured dots the corresponding Vagheggi data values as RAs.
“This isn’t right! It’s not even wrong!”—Wolfgang Pauli (1900–1958)