A Curious Ancient Astrological Confluence

I chose to publish this work without fee, personal acclaim, or compensation, because it is your intellectual property, stolen from you by those who illegitimately seek your fealty. You deserve to once again own this birthright in knowledge.

Antiochus I had the temple site at Nemrut Dag constructed on the anniversary of his coronation as king. But what else did he have in mind besides a celebration of his greatness? Hidden for 2000 years under the gradual creep of the very stone tumulus he had constructed in his honor, is a Leo stone stela of significant importance.

The question therefore arises, why was this knowledge ‘lost’? Lost, despite the lofting power of the very Church that was supposedly crafted to defend it in the first place.

Perhaps there is a deeper mystery here – one handed down through the ages, hidden in plain sight, and one to which most of mankind is no longer privy.

Commagene – A Confluence of Persian, Babylonian and Macedonian Traditions

The Kingdom of Commagene was a Greco-Persian state which resided along the headwaters of the Euphrates River in modern-day Turkey, both during and before the times of the early Roman Empire. By 60 BCE Commagene had been a Greek vassal state since the collapse of The Neo-Assyrian Empire about 609 BCE and the rise of the Seleucid Empire around 312 BCE.1 2 Although the Seleuicid Empire was regarded as a Hellenistic State, it ruled under its own authority and controlled much of the former lands spanning Anatolia, Persia, the Levant, Mesopotamia, and Indus River region.3 After the Battle of Actium in 31 BCE, Commagene transferred authority to reside under the Roman Empire.4 Nonetheless, the Kingdom maintained its autonomy as a culture descended from the Uartu (Ararat) peoples of the Old Assyrian Empire (2600 BCE – 609 BCE), which included Sumer, Persia (Parthian Empire in the lower right quadrant of the map above), the Akkadian Empire, and Babylon. Its most ancient roots formed from the city-state of Ur, circa 3800 BCE. Commagene was situated in a sub-region of modern Turkey called Anatolia, a name which is derived from the Greek term ἀνατολῇ (anatolē), meaning ‘the East’.5 6

Nemrut Dağ

Located inside the eastern extent of the ancient state of Commagene is a tall mountain called by various names, including Nemrut Dag (which I will use herein). ‘Nemrut Dağ’ (Mount Nemrut/Nemrud), at 7000 ft is one of the highest peaks in the east of the Taurus Mountains (which range east through Cilicia on the map above). It maintains one of the best views of the eastern sky in the entire region. The mountain is located in modern day Turkey (see Exhibit 1 below), about 85 km directly north of another UNESCO World Heritage Site and site of the World’s first temple, Göbekli Tepe.7 8

This naturally raises the question of where the civilizations that originally inhabited this area migrated over the millennia. Before moving on, let’s briefly explore this idea by examining the Fertile Crescent and its legacy in terms of human genetic and technological migration. Now, consider and hold in mind the possibility that an esoteric tradition may have been passed along with this lineage as well. We plan to address that near the end of this article.

Exhibit 1B – The Descendancy of Paddan Aram (The Sons of Seth) – From 9600 BCE through to 4000 BCE, the export of genetic lineage and farming technology from out of the fertile crescent into Europe and Southwest Asia. Did this culture also carry a promise which originated from this same location, juxtaposed with Göbekli Tepe and the Sumerian ‘Plain of Edin’ (Paddan Aram)?9

Antiochus I Basileus Megas – Keeper of Ancient Magi Knowledge

Basileus Megas was the title of the great king and inheritor of the sole rule handed down from the Seleucid Empire. Antiochus of Commagene (full title Theos Dikaios Epiphanes Philoromaios Philhellen or ‘The just God who is manifest friend of the Romans and lover of the Greeks’, with ‘Theos’ signifying his divinity), was a Seleucid ruler and Basileus Megas from 69 (or, less probably, 64) to ca. 31 BCE, the son of Mithradates Callinicos and Laodice, the daughter of the Seleucid king Antiochus VIII Grypos. He reigned from the seat of the fomer Empire in Commagene.10 Antiochus, as ‘Theos Epiphanes’ was the ruling keeper of the ancient wisdom of the Magicians (Persian, Babylonian and Macedonian tradition ‘Magi’). Accordingly, Antiochus I had the Hierothesion (temple-observatory) site at Nemrut Dag constructed on the anniversary of his coronation as king (see Exhibit 2 below – click on image to enlarge in a separate window).

Specially designated days are the birthday of “the king’s body” and his coronation. Antiochus dedicated these two days, to the revelations of demons (daimones), which led him during the successful reign over the kingdom. At this point it is worth noting that in ancient times the term “demon” was ambivalent and defined both positive and negative superhuman beings – in this sense, demons often served as guardian spirits, to which role Antiochus clearly referred.

~ Turkish Archaeological News, Mount Nemrut, 5 Feb 201811

Antiochus I Observatory at Mount Nimrut (Nimrod)

The Hierothesion at Nemrut, also called in various languages ‘Nimrud/Nimrut/Nemrud/Nemrut Dag/Dagh’ or ‘Nemrut Dağ/Daği’ as an historical site (distinct from the Turkish dormant volcano named Mount Nemrut) comes replete with its own mountain of crushed stone (the Tumulus), backing the observatory itself. The reader should note that the observatory is built to observe the morning eastern sky in the late summer (August) time frame of each year, and is as a result, aligned at 65° to 70° azimuth from true north (as outlined in Figure B later in this article).12 This is the average azimuth of the rising celestial ecliptic (the average path of the sun moon and planets across the sky) during that time of the year. The persons who built this observatory, apparently knew a little something about what they were looking for. It is also constructed so as to observe the western sky as that same yearly time frame’s ecliptic sets below the horizon.13 (The reader should note that the ecliptic, is the pathway which the Sun takes through our sky. All the planets and our Moon loosely follow this line as they make their journey from east to west each day and night. Throughout this article, you will notice the ecliptic as a thin line placed below Leo’s paws.)

Exhibit 3 – An artificial mound of crushed rock (The Tumulus) backs the observatory’s East Terrace and set of five kings statues.
Exhibit 4 – Shows the East and West Terraces of the complex and their alignment to true north.14 See Figure B below for further elaboration on the significance of the match between the East Terrace layout and the rising celestial ecliptic.
Exhibit 5 – The south horizon view from the West Terrace of Nemrut Dag towards Karahan and Göbekli Tepe, as well as the Field (Paddan Aram from Exhibit 1) of the Arameans (Aramaic-speaking common people of Lebanon, Jordan, and Israel). (Image source: Google Earth)
Exhibit 6 – The east horizon view from the observation platform. Nemrut Dag’s elevation is around 7000 ft. This allowed a vantage point which would be consistently above any overcast skies. Because of its geographic positioning at the east end of the Taurus Mountains, the temple site would have been the go-to location for stellar observations at sunrise and sunset. The three priests (Persian, Babylonian, and Macedonian) would have likely rotated morning watches, in order to maintain the observatory each day, keep the time, greet pilgrims, and wake the others for their watch rotation. These Magi would have been rich from the ‘gifts of herbs and spices’ which were a custom of the day – and more importantly, were mandated by Antiochus I himself (see Exhibit 2). (Image source: Google Earth)

The Horoscope of the Lion (Leo)

During my investigation into the site and the features of the Hierothesion it became clear to me that, while Nemrut Dag was a relatively new religious construction during this time of Roman ascendancy, the wisdoms upon which it was founded, were not new at all. They were ancient Uruk-Bablylonian in their heritage. Whether boast, shell game, or reality, nonetheless Antiochus I had set his mind and resources to the task of preserving, or acting upon those mystery school teachings. Thus, by means of mostly Exhibit 2 (and other resources which are not the focus of this article), we were able established four things regarding the very straightforward history of this relatively noteworthy UNESCO World Heritage Site.

  1. The site was commissioned to celebrate the anniversary of the crowning of Antiochus I,
  2. The site was to be used to monitor and commission festivals and celestial events,
  3. The site was declared to be the burial site for Antiochus I, and finally
  4. The site was observing a tradition which called for the attending (and wealthy) Magi Priests to monitor for a future event.

But what future event was that? The problem with most of the statues and engravings at the site, is that they celebrate the crowning of Antiochus I and Antiochus’s relationship with the Gods (although he appeared to be heavily hedging his bets as to which God was indeed a true God). It was an opportunity for him to boast of his success and honoring of the Gods. But there is one object which stands out among all the others, which is included in the observatory inventory without commentary by Antiochus I. That is the carving into a limestone slab of the constellation Leo adorned with 19 stars and 3 planets. This stela (upright carved limestone slab) was unearthed from the encroaching of the stone hill by Karl Humann and Otto Puchstein in 1882.15

This Leo stone slab depiction was not completed until after Antiochus I’s death, because it survives as a set of works completed after the destruction of the East Terrace.16 Thus it was not part of the inventory at the celebrations commemorated by Antiochus I in Exhibit 2 above.

Ancient historians are comfortable in associating the crafting of this Leo stela, with the 62 BCE 2nd anniversary of Antiochus I’s ascendancy to the throne of Commogene. In fact, the date of 6/7 July 62 BCE features a celestial alignment which is pretty darn close to the one depicted upon the Leo frieze slab shown in more detail in Exhibit 7 above.17 18 The reader can see the celestial alignment of 6/7 July 62 BCE as it rose in the morning sky in Exhibit 9 below. Each of the skycharts presented in this article were developed from Starry Night Pro Plus 8. The writer found that other stellar sky mapping products did not keep alignments correct for dates of medium to extreme antiquity. Starry Night has done a good job of keeping this type of data accurate for decades now.

But is this Assumed Horoscope Indeed Correct?

Since the orbit of Jupiter takes around 12 years to accomplish (and this is the regulating feature of viability inside the horoscope), there exist therefore, about a dozen other candidate dates upon which this horoscope, or one similar, would have manifested over the period immediately prior to, and after the construction of the temple observatory at Nemrut Dag. Namely, the period (for purposes of this article) from 110 BCE to 10 CE. This constitutes a 120 year period through which to search for alternative dates which might also have been commemorated by the Leo limestone frieze – encompassing fully both the reign and life of Antiochus I, as well as the four ensuing decades after his passing. Three of these dates, which includes the two most popular, suggested by authors Neugebauer and Crijns, are outlined in depth inside this article.

Maurice Crijns at the International Nemrud Foundation has suggested a very savvy alternative to the traditionally accepted date of 6/7 July 62 BCE. He and several associate authors have suggested that the date of 14 July 109 BCE fits the horoscope specifics better.19 20 In fact, this date is not a bad a fit. Even though the moon is somewhat out of the picture in this horoscope, and as well the scene could not be seen in the east morning sky (observable upon sunset however), the planets fit the putative horoscope juxtaposition probably better than any particular alignment in the 120-year survey timeframe.

However, this ‘better’ alternative left me unsatisfied, just as had the official 7 July 62 BCE narrative, as there was no crescent Moon showing in the morning sky. Set aside the fact that 109 BCE resided well outside the timeframe of Antiochus’ rule, but as well this was critical in that no Moon was indeed visible at all in either alternative (Exhibits 9 and 10).

Note for later, that any ‘novel star’ would also not be observable in both the 62 BCE and 109 BCE scenarios – as daylight would have obscured its visibility in the eastern morning sky.

The stark potential (null hypothesis) therefore existed that the crescent Moon was essential to the message contained in the Leo stela iconography.

A further problem then presented itself as well with regard to the Leo stela. Why did the Magi priests carve the three planets of the alignment on the back of Leo, and not at his feet? The Moon was positioned correctly relative to the ecliptic, so why would the planets be purposely placed in a location which could never possibly show as correct? This matter bugged me for a long time.

Then one day two decades ago, a back part of my brain pondered this celestial issue in a long meeting while our team argued types of letters of credit – and suddenly it hit me. What if the three planets (Mars, Mercury, and Jupiter) were placed on the back of Leo, not in suggestion that this was the location of the celestial ecliptic (the path of the planets, which is always below Leo’s feet), which would be a ridiculous intimation, but rather because the artist Magician was attempting to communicate a conjunction of those three planets and not a literal alignment along the ecliptic (as they did in contrast correctly with the Moon)? I immediately set about testing this notion later that same evening.

Then it hit me: The three planets were not in a linear-ecliptic juxtaposition, they were a conjunction! This is why the Magician carved the planets well off the true ecliptic (which is below Leo’s paws) in apparent ‘error’. He had purposed a message in this.

I therefore locked my celestial software upon the planet Jupiter and recorded every date between 120 BCE and 10 CE upon which a the moon (not simply a crescent one) was resident in Leo at the same time as Jupiter, being careful to not miss the retrograde periods (where Jupiter appears to travel backwards in the sky and might dart into Virgo, only to return to Leo weeks or a month later).21 As a result, I found 14 total dates during the survey timeframe which matched the Leo horoscope to varying degrees (including the two generally accepted dates outlined in Exhibits 9 and 10 above). These fourteen candidates can be seen in Exhibit 15 later in this article.

To my surprise, only one of those 14 dates upon which this relationship between Jupiter, Mars, Mercury, and a crescent Moon existed – also happened to feature a conjunction of all three of the planets from the Leo horoscope as well! While this was not conclusive, it was deductive, and highly compelling.

However, this was not simply a three planet conjunction, but rather a four planet conjunction – a much more rare and compelling event. Venus was also in the conjunction with Mars Mercury and Jupiter, but was not observable (to the credit of the literal approach to interpreting the Leo horoscope) as it was showing its dark side to Earth on 27 August 2 BCE. The resulting star chart is shown in Figure A to the right. Was this conjunction, part of the exception which the Magi were highlighting in the frieze?

Thus, this was indeed now a four planet conjunction within a single degree of ecliptic – with a Mars-Jupiter apparent occultation (to the naked eye) to boot. This was a big celestial event, one which occurs once every 1,563 years itself (not even factoring in the chance of an occultation), and only every 18,755 years specifically in Leo (see calculation here).

The reason they had chosen the tallest mountain in the region for the Hierothesion was because in a lower position of observation, by the time they could see the horoscope rising in the east, the daylight (even if the Sun was not directly visible) would have already illuminated the atmosphere (risen) and obviated their ability to see the rising stars or even three planets in full phase. The mountain therefore, was essential to the anticipated observation – and the Magi knew this in advance. The platform looking east therefore, was also essential. This full set of realization hit me like a locomotive, and had me hooked.

The Journey Commences – Following a Superfluous Star

However, before we get to the exciting conclusion of this article, please forgive dear reader my wont to bury the lede a bit more. I want to offer more solid depth to my theory than simply the matter of a conjunction of three planets. The following constitutes my journey of logical prosecution around this argument.

I decided therefore to pull down better older imagery of the Leo Horoscope for which to use in my analysis. As it turned out, there were very few resources available on the matter. Just a couple old photos. Nonetheless, I found a sketch from the time period during which the limestone horoscope had been unearthed. What I found was that the Leo Horoscope originally depicted a total of 3 planets and 19 stars, many of which cannot be seen any longer as a result of the damage to the limestone slab over the decades since its discovery.

I then took the stars comprised by the Leo constellation in this drawing and compared them to the 19 star and 3 planet iconography depicted in the best photo of the horoscope stela I could muster. I then compared this composite to the actual array of stars in the constellation Leo. There was only one star for which I could not find a match. I highlighted this star in red (see Exhibits 12A and 12B) so that I could keep track of it as my analysis progressed (an exception placeholder). I found it curious as well that my ‘placeholder’ star just happened to also be embedded inside the crescent Moon. Moreover, I could not shake the feeling that I had seen this icon before.

I carried along doing regular activity for weeks, realizing that I was acutely aware that I had seen this ‘Moon and red star’ symbol somewhere before, but for the life of me could not put my finger upon just where.

One afternoon as I was walking through my home office, my eye caught sight of a plaque on one of my bookshelves. A plaque which had been given to my command by Admiral Saeed Mohammad Khan, Chief of Pakistan’s Navy, as a ‘thank you’ after a series of joint operational exercises we had executed with the Pakistani Navy. On that plaque, was this star and crescent symbol. This ‘Star #12’ was no mere accidental nor superfluous symbol. This interloper into Leo, was a big deal. Perhaps even what the Magi had been commissioned to look for – given that it rose exactly on the azimuth to which the East Terrace observation platform was pointing. (Please note that one can click on any image to obtain an enlargement in a separate window.)

This interloper into Leo, this placeholder, this Star #12 – was a big deal. This superfluous star, was exactly what the Magi was attempting to point out.

Armed with this solved assignment match-up, I then conversely took the reverse approach of attempting to recreate the Leo horoscope in terms of an actual celestial chart. I was successful in matching each planet and star to its assigned role inside the Magician’s sculpture. Of course, the superfluous Star #12 still remained. Every solution I devised to eliminate the superfluous presence of this star, ended up displacing the rest of the assignment grid into incoherence. As one may notice in the celestial mock up below, there are really no other choices available to the analyst.

This being completed, the sole step which remained was to compare all fourteen horoscope candidate dates that we had previously identified, in order to find the most successful one in terms of its conformance to the celestial chart shown in Exhibit 13. How did each candidate date perform against key features of the horoscope, and which one bore the greatest explanatory power in terms of celestial and iconographic matchup? I felt this to constitute a more rigorous process than was used by either Neugebauer or Crijns in Exhibits 8 or 9 respectively, above (no sleight on either of them as, were it not for their sapient work, I would not even be doing this).

Therefore, I assembled an argument table and compared the 14 candidate horoscope dates to the 14 key requisite features shown in Exhibit 14 below. One date alone, became the clear champion across all key requisites – that date was 27 August 2 BCE.

The Only Reason the Stele Was a Mystery — We Approached it with the Wrong Assumptions

Therefore, I inserted that date 27 August 2 BCE into my Starry Night Pro Plus 8 software, and derived a picture which likely has not been seen by human eyes since that very day. The morning sky, in the east, the morning of 27 August 2 BCE. Of course dear reader remember, this depiction in Exhibit 16 below includes a proposed, superfluous and interloping ‘Star #12’. A key differentiator here is that, because the sun is under the horizon, two things happen: 1) the moon takes a waning crescent (which is indeed part of the horoscope-snapshot), and 2) one can actually see the constellation and sky, as opposed to the other popular dates in which the Magi could not ‘see the star in the east’, and instead had to wait for the western view. The presence of the West Terrace indeed confirming that the Magi used the occulting of the sun by the horizon, as part of their observation discipline.

The problem introduced by the superfluous Star #12 is that it forces the horoscope to be observed with the Sun below the horizon. Otherwise one cannot ‘observe the star rising in the east’ at all (or really anything for that matter). And since Mercury is in Leo, the Sun by rule, must be close above or below. The only viable date which satisfied this constraint of having the Sun below the horizon, was 27 August 2 BCE.

In Figure B below, one should notice that both the direct of gaze of the 5 statues of the East Terrace, as well as the observation platform at the east ledge of the terrace, bound the actual position upon which Regulus rose on 27 August 2 BCE (shown in Exhibit 16 above). The star name Regulus (cuneiform 𒀯𒌨𒄖𒆷) in Sumerian means ‘The constellation of the Great King who is to come’ (see end of article for recitations). I think there is no doubt that these Magicians knew in advance what they were looking for.

Figure B – Both the orientation of the 5 statues on the East Terrace (as if they were gazing toward what they were looking for), as well as the orientation of the ‘observation platform’ of the East Terrace – together bound the actual azimuth upon which Regulus appeared over the horizon on 27 Aug 2 BCE. This is inside an annual azimuth variation which ranges from 64° to 122° from true north each year. An astounding match, despite the fact that Jupiter bore a higher occurrence of conjunction with the Moon in Leo in July to September of such arrival years (see Exhibit 15).

Below in Exhibit 16, one can observe the fully resolved Leo Horoscope, replete with Mercury residing above a line intersecting Mars and Jupiter (as we observe in Exhibits 12A and B, and 13), along with its mysterious interloping ‘Star #12’. This stellar alignment surpasses by far, every stipulation entailed inside the Leo Horoscope assembled by the ancient Magi at the Nemrut Dag observatory.

While the Magicians who saw this knew generally what they were looking for in the 27 August 2 BCE eastern morning sky, the Leo stela was not a prediction in stone, nor a commemoration of the past.

This was a snapshot – and what was left out was as critically important as what was left in.

Given that the Magi did not include Venus (which was invisible) and included a slightly higher offset of Mercury above Mars and Jupiter – that means that this stela was made to depict an observed celestial state, and not merely one of a calculated horoscope, as is popularly thought. Hence all the mystery in trying to interpret this frieze – we maintained an incorrect assumption (as is the usual case).

This was indeed a rare alignment of Jupiter, Venus, Mars, and Mercury, but the appearance of Anomalous Star #12 alongside it was no accident.

Space Force Delta 18 Logo

Antiochus I Theos Epiphanes’ Magicians (Magi, or ‘Wise Men’) were not seeking a prescriptive horoscope, but rather observing for a specific sign—one passed down through the ages of wisdom (see Figure E below), from the very first days of gods and men on Earth.

At the completion of my analysis it became manifestly clear that the Magi at Nemrut Dag were not looking for a mere ‘horoscope’. Such a thing could be easily calculated and confirmed back in the palace city, at much less expense, and in a setting where the glory of Antiochus I’s monuments to himself would be on display for all to see, not just a few sturdy 7,000 ft mountain-scrambling pilgrims.

No, Antiochus and his Wise Men were looking for a specific observation which could not be calculated nor seen from the capitol itself – the appearance of a foretold event of enormous importance to them, in the eastern morning sky – an anomalous star. An event that heralded the end of the age of the Anunnaki Gods.

. . .

Out of the Strong, Something Sweet – The King of the Arameans

I must admit, this realization was far from the outcome I expected when I began the analysis. Yet, the fact that something could be purposely hidden in plain sight—shielded by flawed assumptions and ancient efforts to obfuscate its mission—comes as no surprise to an ethical skeptic.

Intelligence in some regards may be defined as, a disciplined tolerance for conjecture. As fate would have it, Antiochus’ celestial observatory was never completely finished, while the Magician priests apparently departed and abandoned the site sometime during the decade following the 2 BCE date. As is typical of any complex issue, an analysis of this type leaves many questions unanswered, and serves to introduce so many more. Aside from convention, which might suggest there is nothing meaningful inside any of this (this must be considered), skepticism raises questions – and does not seek to prematurely squelch them (cynicism).

  • What were the trio of Nemrud Dag Magicians looking for?
  • Why did they cease their devotion to duty? Was their job done?
  • What happened to this superfluous star?
  • Why did Star #12 make its appearance already tightly affixed to our Sun’s ecliptic?
  • Why did the gravity of ‘Star #12’ not disrupt the entire solar system in terms of planetary orbit eccentricity, inclination, and obliquity? Does this suggest it may have been a distant super nova? or a smaller object in full phase (which it would have been)? or that it was fabricated to begin with?
  • Why did Star #12 come through right when the five inner planets (Earth-(Moon)-Mars-Mercury-Jupiter-Venus) all just happened to be in a 1 in 18,755 year alignment, in direct axial harmony along the the very same axis upon which the interloper also arrived? How would one even calculate the odds of that?
  • Why did Star #12 appear right where the Leonid meteors radiate from, under the chin of Leo?
  • Why was this Star #12 placed in the frieze directly over the body of the Moon itself? Astrologers of the time would have known well that star and planetary fields lay behind the Moon at all times. Perhaps it was not then a ‘star’ per se?
Figure D – The star and crescent motif inhabits the flags of at least 24 nations.

Moreover and more subjectively,

  • Why do flags of 24 nations and coins from as far back as 340 BCE contain the star and crescent symbology? While this is a Turkish national symbol, it was not originally a symbol of Turkey nor Islam – and is generally rejected by Shia Islam.
  • Why does this symbol predate both Islam and Turkey by more than 2600 years?
  • Why did King Richard I “the Lionheart” and other Kings as well as Christian crusaders venerate the symbology on seals, shields, and coins?
  • Why did the symbol exist on Pillar 18, one of the central Pillars of the oldest and largest enclosure (D) of Gobekli Tepe, erected around 9,600 or even 14,800 BCE?
  • Why is it commonly taught in academia that this symbol did not exist until it was adopted ‘as a symbol of the Turks’, when it is obvious with the slightest research effort that this is false?

Regarding Regulus 𒌨𒄖𒆷 the star (or 𒀯 MUL ‘star group’),

  • Why are the alchemical symbols for Regulus, the star which the Moon occulted in this horoscope, a star and crescent (🜳) and crown (🜲)?
  • Why did the Babylonian MUL.APIN (1000 BCE) call Regulus, Lugal (The Great One)? – despite its being only the 21st brightest star in the sky?24
  • Why did the ancient Sumerian teachings (3500+ BCE) call Regulus (cuneiform) 𒀯𒌨𒄖𒆷 or MULUR.GU.LA? Which translated means,
    – MUL (MZL-247) ‘constellation of’25
    – UR (MZL-828) ‘the Great One/Lion of’26
    – GU (MZL-891) ‘by thread/chord’27
    – LA (Adverb of lā, MZL-89) ‘is absently’.28
  • The cuneiform character 𒆷 (LA, or U+121B7) is also a combination of
    – 𒃲 GAL or ‘King/Highest/Chief/A Full Cup/Gallon’29
    whereas the left side of the cuneiform block
    𒆷 LA, ŠIKA means ‘without’ or ‘left remaining’ (shy one part of four – a ‘GAL’)30
  • Thus, regardless of the combination, idiom, or even the Babylonian term LUGAL, the phrase translates as “the constellation of the Great One (or Final King) who is to come.” This motif closely parallels the Zoroastrian messianic figure known as the Saoshyant—the final renewer who appears at the end of history—as well as Daniel 7’s “Son of Man” and First Enoch’s messianic deliverer, the “Elect One” (see bottom panel of Figure E below).

The Coming Saoshyant / Son of Man

Before we begin this section, it becomes necessary to establish a couple clarifying definitions and principles:

Mēšîḥā (Aramaic) / Māšîaḥ (Hebrew) / Christós (Greek) — This term is functional rather than metaphysical. It denotes an individual set apart for a specific office through ritual anointing with oil. The word itself carries no inherent implication of divinity, pre-existence, or cosmic singularity. Properly understood, the Mēšîḥā is a restorative agent among several—the next figure tasked with re-establishing continuity within an existing order, not transcending or abolishing it.

The Son of God — identified as the Christós/Mēšîḥā in Christian theology – endowed with functions far beyond those implied by anointing alone. But his role is to enforce the standing kingdom on behalf of its sovereign God (Shemyaza or Ha-Satan). When Satan offered this role as the Son of God, Jesus neutralized both the question and its premise [Matthew 4: 8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. 9 “All this I will give you (as an inheritance and as my heir),” he said, “if you will bow down and worship me (a recognition of sovereignty – granting sovereignty without heirship is incoherent. Regardless as to whether or not the claim to sovereignty is valid, a ruler does not decide who is the next sovereign in the way one appoints an official, by law this can only be done through familial succession as his/her offspring.).”]

In contrast, Jesus exclusively referred to himself as “The Son of Man.”

Son of Man / Saōš́iiaṇt (Yamnayan Avestan 4700 – 3300 BCE: the lowest stable pre-Sumerian layer culture)31 — means roughly “one who brings benefit / salvation.” He is not merely an anointed leader but a cosmic actor. Appears at the end of time, defeats evil definitively (Angra Mainyu’s legacy), and oversees: resurrection of the dead, final judgment, Frashokereti (the renovation of the world). The adherent possesses the ancient widsom called Vohu Manah.

Figure E – The Vohu Manah Instruction of Adam and Eve – Adam and Eve, with Emesh (Cain) and Enten (Abel) standing by in iconographic form, are instructed as to what sign to look for, regarding the emancipation of mankind from the Anunnaki/Archons. MET Seal Object Number 1984.383.9 from the 2350 BCE Akkadian period (top). The British Museum, Old Bablyonian period, 1900 – 1600 BCE, Cylinder seal #89327 (bottom).

The third of these contexts is the one which applies herein. Accordingly, why was the initiate of the Magician’s mysteries (Vohu Manah) unfailingly brought before the Gods to learn the secret of the star and crescent — a symbol that endures across 3,700 years of mystical tradition, from ancient Uruk (ca. 3800 BCE), through the Akkadian age (ca. 2350 BCE), and on into the Roman-era kingdom of Commagene (ca. 100 BCE) and beyond? Such gravitas in legacy would not be assigned to a mere functional office among many over time. This can be observed in the scrolling video linked in the text above, along with the accompanying images. I include here cylinder seals from The Metropolitan Museum (Met) and the British Museum to demonstrate that the ancient corpus of Sumerian, Old Babylonian, and Akkadian eschatological art originally and consistently portrayed the entity within the crescent not as the sun, nor as the winged disk, but as a star.

A clear example appears in Metropolitan Museum of Art Seal Object Number 1984.383.9, dating to the Akkadian period (ca. 2350 BCE), shown in the image to the right. In the upper panel of the image, the initiate — often accompanied by a priest in recurring Ur III renditions of this motif — is instructed in the mystery and promise of the star and crescent. That promise included nothing less than the overthrow of the planet’s reigning powers. The same theme recurs in another Akkadian seal from the Met’s collection (Object Number 41.160.281), where the star and crescent once again serve as emblems of cosmic rebellion. Indeed, the Met and British Museum collections contain literally hundreds of such “star-and-crescent” Gods-teaching-Man scenes, testifying to a persistent and ancient eschatological current.

In the bottom panel, Old Babylonian cylinder seal #89327 from The British Museum, Adam and Eve are shown being instructed about a future King, the ‘Son of Man.’ This figure is depicted between them in the context of ‘son’ and of ‘man,’ his arrival to be heralded by the symbol of the star and crescent. The dog holding a standard represents a Kassite symbol for divine decree,32 while the fly between Adam and Eve signifies engagement and conquest of an enemy.33 In keeping with this motif, the Avestan Saoshyant is the prophesied world-renewer. In the Zoroastrian (one of the three Magi who attended the birth of Christ) orginal eschatology, He arises at the end of time, defeats the forces of Angra Mainyu (Ahriman, the Lie), and ushers in the Frashokereti — the final renovation of the world.

The prophesied arrival of the Son of Man — anticipated by the Basileus Megas (chief Magus) Antiochus — was bound to the great transition from the Age of Aries to the Age of Pisces (ca. 1 BCE). This shift is symbolized in the seal’s right-to-left flow, where the ram and the fish appear to the left of ‘Eve.’ Behind the depiction of the fish and the ram, possibly reside the planet Jupiter (behind the ram) flowing from right to left (see Video A below) into the constellation Leo (behind the fish). This eschatological expectation explains why Antiochus, as Theos Epiphanes, the ruling keeper of the ancient wisdom, was compelled to build the Hierothesion at Nemrut Dag and appoint the three Magi tasked with watching for this pivotal event involving Regulus, Jupiter, a crescent Moon, and Leo in the morning sky.

The original British Museum web posting of Old Babylonian Cylinder Seal #89327- subset of British Museum composite BM# 89376 (bottom panel of Figure E above) – can be accessed at this link, or can be viewed by clicking on this image.34

They destroyed the libraries and buried the cylinder seal imprints in the sand, but this was still not enough.

Seal of King Richard I (the Lionheart)

It is, of course, compelling that these Magi—whom I propose are one and the same as the Wise Men of the Bible—had seen their star when it rose, and while they were located, ‘in the East’ (Greek ἀνατολῇ (anatolē = ‘the direction of the sun rise’ or ‘east’).35 ‘The land of the sun’s rising’ or ‘the east’ is the meaning behind the name Anatolia, Turkey—the location of Paddan Aram, Nemrut Dag, as well as Göbekli and Karahan Tepe.

Is this ancient mystery why the Great Sphinx of Giza’s original Leo monument (arguably 12,000 years old and NOT built by Khafre – now you know why the monument was altered from a lioness to Khafre’s visage) gazes patiently in wait towards the constellation Leo in the eastern morning sky?36

Was it a mere coincidence that Star #12 appeared less than two years (1 year and 4 months – but in reality probably more like a year or less) before the traditionally celebrated birth of Christ? and 8 to 24 months before the various reputed dates for the death of Herod the Great (see timeline below)?

Was this connected at all with Herod’s purported slaying of all male children in Bethlehem, 2 years old and younger, after inquiring of the visiting Magi as to the timing of a new star they saw rise in the eastern sky?37

Herod, of course, was serving his masters in his attempt to kill Christ immediately after His birth—the emancipation of mankind being the very thing these Archons feared most. From I Enoch, where the Watchers were denied forgiveness by the Father of All That Is and sentenced to imprisonment to Earth,38 to The Hypostasis of the Archons, which describes the animosity between these ‘gods’ and men, one can discern why the Archons are terrified of mankind’s impending emancipation from their rule.

The Rulers then sought another meeting with Norea (daughter of Adam and Eve), in order to suggest an even more extreme plot against Noah’s ark construction. They appealed to her, even citing that “Eve herself has come to us urging that you Norea, undertake some kind of firmer action.” But Norea replied to the Rulers, “You are the gods here. You are the ones who rule this dark void and planet. You are the ones who bear this curse, not me. I bear no kin to you whatsoever. You may have birthed horrid beasts from the raping of my mother. But they look and act just like you. You are neither related to me, nor am I a product of your genetic tampering. I am the daughter of mankind alone, that being who was granted the blessed inheritance long ago from the Incorruptible Realms above.”

This enraged Ha-Satan, and he convened a court in which he stood as judge. He issued a sentencing to Norea, “You are now enslaved under us and must offer an even larger tithe than did your mother Eve. This is my official decree as God over all of the Earth. Norea stood in front of the court, and with inspiration appealed towards the heavens and the Father of All That Is, “I beseech you now Holy One, please rescue me from the clutches of these malevolent Rulers (the Archons).”

~ The Hypostasis of the Archons, concealed from destruction in clay jars and found at Nag Hammadi in 1946

In the end, it is not our doctrinal or intellectual correctness that merits a place in The Kingdom Come cited in The Lord’s Prayer. If that were the case, no one would make it. Salvation is a free gift for all mankind, a final emancipation from the rule of dark principalities. It is not earned, nor is it a reward. Just as you are not defined by your religious practices and doctrines, neither are you defined by your errors.

The obsessive and red herring focus on personal sin and doctrine was a defensive gaslighting tactic of the Chief Archon and creator of The Law, Semjaza. To enslave someone spiritually, you must exploit the unknown, keeping them perpetually off balance and in constant terror of their mortality. These entities thrive on our guilt, intoxication, existential fear, hate, and blame. In this system, self-loathing—or even numbness and denial—becomes an essential ingredient. Banishment from the presence of All That Is is reserved for these Watcher-Archons and their dark army—not for us.

Daniel’s Prophecy: Feast of The Lord Chronology

Is it merely coincidence that this Leo Stela Horoscope falls right into line as the right conjunction to feature an anomalous star, inside the prophecy of Daniel as to when the Son of Man was to be born? (use controls on bottom right of Video A below to view full sized video)

Seven Leo-Jupiter Conjunctions of Chaldean-Magician Prophecy and Anomalous Star #12

Video A – Celestial lock on Jupiter as it makes its seven-conjunction journey starting from mid July 3 BCE, through its retrograde period, the culmination of the 27 Aug 2 BCE Grand Conjunction, the anomalous Star #12 inside the crescent waning Moon, and finally on past the 7th conjunction on 13 Oct 2 BCE.

All of this of course, plays out in the following chronology of the time of Christ’s birth. One which elegantly fits the timing of the horoscope depicted at Nemrut Dag and is dated through the analysis shown in Exhibit 14 earlier in this article.

Our Argument: Anomalous Star #12 is the fabled ‘Star of Bethlehem

Finally, is this entailed eschatology, along with the Leonid meteors originating as if ‘bees’ from Leo, now finally the answer to Samson’s Riddle posed in Judges 14:14?:41

“Let me tell you a riddle,” Samson said to them.

“Out of the eater, something to eat;
out of the strong, something sweet.”

Old Testament Law and The ‘Why’ of Lost Knowledge

We all know how knowledge is ‘lost’. Throughout our study of fake skepticism, destructive agency, embargo of information, and spiritual obfuscation we have become students as to the practices of cultivated ignorance. The question therefore arises, why was this knowledge ‘lost’? Lost, despite the lofting power of the very Church that was supposedly crafted to defend it in the first place. Truth apparently slipped between the fingers of the Church as so many scales falling from the Nelsonian eyes of a blind man. Below, we may observe a hint as to the ‘why’.

Archonic powers will only allow philosophies to thrive which do not serve to shed light upon nor thwart their exploits. Given mankind’s spiritual longing, there was no possibility they were going to be able to sequester this subject in its entirety. ‘Christianity’ and ‘Islam’ therefore, were the very ignoratio elenchi diversions they needed – perpetuating in good people a terror of their own mortality, abusive doctrinal fanaticism, violent zealotry, and dutiful social pressure against true inquiry and skepticism. The introduction of mindless naturalism and the so-called critical thinking of fake skepticism, as an overreaction to all this irrationality, only served to further this same agenda—through an invalid denial of spirituality altogether.

In such defining by apophasis, it does not matter what you believe, as long as you remain unaware of them. This is why they have hidden our history—merging Greco-Roman paganism, the Dionysian Mysteries, the cults of Mithras and Isis, Celtic and Germanic traditions, Zoroastrian eschatology, and numerous other regional religions, traditions, pseudo-faiths, and cults into the Narrative of (State) God, presiding over a sinful, terrified, and shortened-lifespan42 citizenry. By doing so, they ensured we would perceive neither the presence nor the criminal abuse of The Rulers.43 For the ethical skeptic, this underscores the importance of maintaining a disposition of ignostic atheism. From fundamentalism to secular nihilism, their false dilemma is not your spiritual mandate. Your heritage is far more profound and impactful than these shallow, pseudo-philosophies could ever allow.

Doctrinal fanaticism is the most sincere form of disbelief.

Those who enforce a definition of the term ‘God’ upon us all, ranging from impassioned and vague boundlessness to cynical and abject empty set – are claiming expertise in God.

Know this, there are no experts in God.

Our final article insight calls for wisdom. Perhaps indicating a more sinister attempt at hijacking the star and crescent symbology for use in a counterfeit Priestly role – a corrupted form of ‘Anti-Magi’ if you will – why does the World Economic Forum now entertain this same star and crescent symbol inside their branding?

Near the end of the short video clip below, as the World Economic Forum UN-blue crescent Moon symbol drifts into station by 0.049° (10% of the full moon’s diameter, 176 arc seconds, 3.5 years of the doctrinal clock of the ancients, the Great Year – or 42 months)44 along the ecliptic to form this now familiar logo inside their symbolism-rich horoscope, an iconic, ominous, and perhaps even fanciful message comes into focus.

A calculation which reveals an occult pirating of His official trademark – and deciphers the number of The Party’s coming false King and ‘Son (Mithras/Dionysus/Horus) of God (Semjaza-Samael-Saturn-Enlil-El).’

The blue ‘O’ in the term ‘Economic’ inside the video shown below is the anchor point for the second portion of the Greek portmanteau oικο νομικός (Greek: oiko nomikos). It means house law, or more specifically, ‘The Law’ – that which ruled man during the period covered by what we call the Old Testament – and by which, through the edict of this watcher Elohim, we remain subject to their exploitative, cruel, and repeated judgments forever.



Such rich symbolism is just one of the predictable habits of the dark principalities who pretend to rule over mankind with a righteous wrath. One curious thing to note about The Law, is that it only applies to those who are lesser than you. A hard lesson we learned in 2020. A trick they learned from their father.45

Regardless of the nature of such rhetoric regarding humanity’s enslavement however, spiritual authority and succession are realities of this realm and do not require our, nor especially their, permission to exist. The Son of Man would not surrender His authority at the Third Temptation (the offer to become the Son of God),46 so he had to be killed. Now this authority must be stolen through technicality, illegitimacy, and genetic counterfeit. At least, that’s the plan.

Too witless to stand as peer to the gods, yet blessed with an essence that precludes becoming their chattel, mankind has long struggled, seemingly alone, in this precarious middle ground. Meanwhile, those who find this critical childhood alluring are not to be trusted.

Far-sighted and ever-watchful, the god Enki had dissented. He recalled a time not so long ago, where in a fit of blind vengeance, the fallen Watchers had slaughtered a revered god, desecrating his intelligence and mocking his essence to craft their ease upon the backs of these beings — abusing his DNA as effigy of his image.

He quietly observed the swift shoes of Sabaoth as they traversed Earth’s night skies with impunity, keeping his thoughts and plans close to the vest. His loyalty teetering in the balance, he had long suspected a grander scheme at play — one in which Kingu himself may have petitioned the heavens to free his spit-and-clay progeny from their cruel enslavement. Enki fears that Kingu (Geshtu-e), in a sudden incisive assault, will unleash a force so powerful that neither his fellow gods nor their underworld chimera will stand a chance of survival.

Driven by their Enochian terror, the Watchers seek to regain access to the heavens by exploiting, abducting, and abusing a hostage mankind—seeking to create a profane successor hybrid species—one that carries their essence while inheriting, through human genetics, the blessing of access bestowed to us by the All That Is. This is the unholy husbandry they sought just as in the days of Noah, before their grotesque chimera were destroyed by the great inundation. Yet, they will not be permitted to succeed in cracking this code.

This scheme of escape from their Earthly prison will fail. Neither their exotic tech nor their Samson-option weapons of mass destructive wrath will prevent these entities’ overthrow or save them from their impending demise.

This age cannot continue and a new Kingdom comes.

As is frequently the case, which of course the experienced ethical skeptic (Vohu Manah) recognizes, successfully answered questions inevitably give rise to even more pertinent critical path questions. One can only hope to be faithful of heart, and pursue them as best they can. This is wisdom.

The Ethical Skeptic, “A Curious Ancient Astrological Confluence”; The Ethical Skeptic, WordPress, 24 Feb 2022; Web, https://theethicalskeptic.com/2022/02/24/a-curious-astrological-confluence/

The Elements of Hypothesis

As most scientifically minded persons realize, hypothesis is the critical foundation in exercise of the scientific method. It is the entry door which demonstrates the discipline and objectivity of the person asking to promote their case in science. Wikipedia cites the elements of hypothesis in terms of the below five features, as defined by philosophers Theodore Schick and Lewis Vaughn:16

  • Testability (involving falsifiability)
  • Parsimony (as in the application of “Occam’s razor” (sic), discouraging the postulation of excessive numbers of entities)
  • Scope – the apparent application of the hypothesis to multiple cases of phenomena
  • Fruitfulness – the prospect that a hypothesis may explain further phenomena in the future
  • Conservatism – the degree of “fit” with existing recognized knowledge-systems.

Equivocally, these elements are all somewhat correct, however none of the five elements listed above constitute logical truths of science nor philosophy. They are only correct under certain stipulations. The problem resides in that this renders these elements not useful, and at worst destructive in terms of the actual goals of science. They do not bear utility in discerning when fully structured hypothesis is in play, or some reduced set thereof. For instance, ‘Scope’ is functionally moot at the point of hypothesis, because in the structure of Intelligence, the domain of observation has already been established – it had to have been established, otherwise you could not develop the hypothesis from any form of intelligence to begin with.21 22 To address scope again at the hypothesis stage is to further tamper with the hypothesis without sound basis. Let the domain of observation stand, as it was observed – science does not advance when observations are artificially fitted into scope buckets (see two excellent examples of this form of pseudoscience in action, with Examples A and B below).

Fruitfulness can mean ‘producing that which causes our paradigm to earn me more tenure or money’ or ‘consistent with subjects I favor and disdain’ or finally and worse, ‘is able to explain everything I want explained’. Predictive strength, or even testable mechanism, are much stronger and less equivocal elements of hypothesis. So, these two features of hypothesis defined by Schick and Vaughn are useless to vacuous in terms of real contribution to scientific study. These two bad philosophies of science (social skepticism) serve to produce inevitably a fallacy called explanitude. A condition wherein the hypothesis is considered stronger the more select historical observations it serves to explain and how flexible it can be in predicting or explaining select future observations. Under ethical skepticism, this qualification of an alternative or especially null hypothesis is a false notion. Also known as pseudo-theory, an idea which explains everything easily, likely explains nothing at all. This process begins by a faulty method of science which ‘begins with a question’ (aka as a ‘rhetorically-expressed’ a priori answer).

        Orphan Question

/philosophy : pseudoscience : sciebam/ : a question, purported to be the beginning of the scientific method, which is asked in the blind, without sufficient intelligence gathering or preparation research, and is as a result highly vulnerable to being manipulated or posed by means of agency. The likelihood of a scientifically valid answer being developed from this question process, is very low. However, an answer of some kind can almost always be developed – and is often spun by its agency as ‘science’. This form of question, while not always pseudoscience, is a part of a modified process of science called sciebam. It should only be asked when there truly is no base of intelligence or body of information regarding a subject. A condition which is rare.

        Sciebam

/philosophy : science : method : sciebam/ : (Latin: I knew) An alternative form of knowledge development, which mandates that science begins with the orphan/non-informed step of ‘ask a question’ or ‘state a hypothesis’. A non-scientific process which bypasses the first steps of the scientific method: observation, intelligence development and formulation of necessity. This form of pseudoscience/non-science presents three vulnerabilities:

First it presumes that the researcher possesses substantially all the knowledge or framework they need, lacking only to fill in final minor gaps in understanding. This creates an illusion of knowledge effect on the part of the extended domain of researchers. As each bit of provisional knowledge is then codified as certain knowledge based upon prior confidence. Science can only progress thereafter through a series of shattering paradigm shifts.

Second, it renders science vulnerable to the possibility that, if the hypothesis, framework or context itself is unacceptable at the very start, then its researcher therefore is necessarily conducting pseudoscience. This no matter the results, nor how skillfully and expertly they may apply the methods of science. And since the hypothesis is now a pseudoscience, no observation, intelligence development or formulation of necessity are therefore warranted. The subject is now closed/embargoed by means of circular appeal to authority.

Finally, the question asked at the beginning of a process of inquiry can often prejudice the direction and efficacy of that inquiry. A premature or poorly developed question, and especially one asked under the influence of agency (not simply bias) – and in absence of sufficient observation and intelligence – can most often result quickly in a premature or poorly induced answer.

Science (Latin: scī́mus/sciḗmus -‘we know/we will know’)47 – leveraging challenging thinking, deductive falsification, straightforward complexity, and consilience to infer a critical path of novel comprehension – one prosecutes (pursues) truth.

Sciebam (Latin: sciēbā́mus -‘we knew’)48 – exploiting assumption, abduction, panduction, complicated simplicity, and linear/statistical induction to confirm an existing or orphan understanding – one is holder of the truth.

†See The Distinction Between Comprehension and Understanding (The Problem of Abduction)

Real Hypothesis

Ethical skepticism proposes a different way of lensing the above elements. Under this philosophy of hypothesis development, I cannot make any implication of the ilk that ‘I knew’ the potential answer a priori. Such implication biases both the question asked, as well as the processes of inference employed. Rather, hypothesis development under ethical skepticism involves structure which is developed around the facets of Intelligence, Mechanism and Wittgenstein Definition/Domain. A hypothesis is neither a hunch, assumption, suspicion nor idea. Rather it is a form of self-skeptical notion:

       Hypothesis

/philosophy : skepticism : scientific method/ : a disciplined and structured incremental risk in inquiry, relying upon the co-developed necessity of mechanism and intelligence. A hypothesis necessarily features seven key elements which serve to distinguish it from non-science or pseudoscience.

The Seven Elements of Hypothesis

1.  Construct based upon necessity. A construct is a disciplined ‘spark’ (scintilla or construct) of an idea, on the part of a researcher or type I, II or III sponsor, educated in the field in question and experienced in its field work. Once a certain amount of intelligence has been developed, as well as definition of causal mechanism which can eventually be tested (hopefully) under a given risk exposure or sufficient plausibility, then the construct becomes ‘necessary’ (i.e. passes Ockham’s Razor). See The Necessary Alternative. A hypothesis is not simply a ‘question’, especially one which is asked through agency, or because the scientific method supposedly ‘starts with a question’.

2.  Wittgenstein definition and defined domain. A disciplined, exacting, consistent, conforming definition need be developed as premise for both the domain of observation, as well as the underpinning terminology and concepts. See Wittgenstein Error and The Tests of Neologism. Beware of thesis statements that are nothing but hollow jargon, or emply their jargon as a means to pretend that they have developed a novel hypothesis, when they are simply rehashing or stealing prior art on the subject.

3.  Parsimony vs Prior Art. The resistance to expand explanatory plurality or descriptive-feature complexity beyond what is absolutely necessary, combined with the wisdom to know when to do so. Conjecture along an incremental and critical path of syllogism/risk. Avoidance of unnecessarily orphan questions, even if apparently incremental in the offing. See The Real Ockham’s Razor. Three characteristic traits highlight hypothesis which has been adeptly posed inside parsimony.

a. Is incremental and critical path in its construct – the incremental conjecture should be a reasoned, single stack and critical path new construct. Constructs should follow prior art inside the hypothesis (not necessarily science as a whole), and seek an answer which serves to reduce the entropy of knowledge.

b. Methodically conserves risk in its conjecture – no question may be posed without risk. Risk is the essence of hypothesis. A hypothesis, once incremental in conjecture, should be developed along a critical path which minimizes risk in this conjecture by mechanism and/or intelligence, addressing each point of risk in increasing magnitude or stack magnitude.

c. Posed so as to minimize stakeholder risk – (i.e. precautionary principle) – a hypothesis should not be posed which suggests that a state of unknown regarding risk to impacted stakeholders is acceptable as central aspect of its ongoing construct critical path. Such risk must be addressed first in critical path as a part of 3. a. above.

4.  Duty to Reduce Address and Inform. A critical element and aspect of parsimony regarding a scientific hypothesis. The duty of such a hypothesis to expose and address in its syllogism, all known prior art in terms of both analytical intelligence obtained or direct study mechanisms and knowledge. If information associated with a study hypothesis is unknown, it should be simply mentioned in the study discussion. However, if countermanding information is known or a key assumption of the hypothesis appears magical, the structure of the hypothesis itself must both inform of its presence and as well address its impact. See Methodical Deescalation and The Warning Signs of Stacked Provisional Knowledge.

This prior art, along with all open issues, should be streamlined into a ‘salient not just relevant’ critical path of question and logical calculus (the ‘reducing’ in this sense, and not ‘reductionism’ – which is tossing out any and all salient factors that serve to threaten the hypothesis). This is called the ‘critical path of prosecution.’

Pseudo-hypothesis

/philosophy : pseudoscience/ : A pseudo-hypothesis explains everything, anything and nothing, all at the same time.

A pseudo-hypothesis fails in its duty to reduce, address or inform. A pseudo-hypothesis states a conclusion and hides its critical path risk (magical assumption) inside its set of prior art and predicate structure. A hypothesis on the other hand reduces its sets of prior art, evidence and conjecture and makes them manifest. It then addresses critical path issues and tests its risk (magical assumption) as part of its very conjecture accountability. A hypothesis reduces, exposes and puts its magical assertion on trial. A pseudo-hypothesis hides its magical assumptions woven into its epistemology and places nothing at risk thereafter. A hypothesis is not a pseudo-hypothesis as long as it is ferreting out its magical assumptions and placing them into the crucible of accountability. Once this process is ceased, the ‘hypothesis’ has been transformed into an Omega Hypothesis. Understanding this difference is key to scientific literacy.

Grant me one hidden miracle and I can explain everything else.

5.  Intelligence, not just Data. Data is denatured into information, and information is transmuted into intelligence. Inside decision theory and clandestine operation practices, intelligence is the first level of illuminating construct upon which one can make a decision. The data underpinning the intelligence should necessarily be probative and not simply reliable. Intelligence skills combine a healthy skepticism towards human agency, along with an ability to adeptly handle asymmetry, recognize probative data, assemble patterns, increase the reliability of incremental conjecture and pursue a sequitur, salient and risk mitigating pathway of syllogism. See The Role of Intelligence Inside Science. If all the intelligence offered is cherry picked, mocked, or otherwise biased toward or against the hypothesis, it is not really a hypothesis.

6.  Describes Mechanism. Every effect in the universe is subject to cause. Such cause may be mired in complexity or agency; nonetheless, reducing a scientific study into its components and then identifying underlying mechanisms of cause to effect – is the essence of science. A pathway from which cause yields effect, which can be quantified, measured and evaluated (many times by controlled test) – is called mechanism. See Reduction: A Bias for Understanding.

7.  Exposure to Accountability (Incremental Risk past Prior Art).  This is not peer review. While during the development phase, a period of time certainly must exist in which a hypothesis is held proprietary so that it can mature – and indeed fake skeptics seek to intervene before a hypothesis can mature and eliminate it via ‘Occam’s Razor’ (sic) so that it cannot be researched. Nonetheless, a hypothesis must be crafted such that its elements 1 – 6 above can be held to the light of accountability, by 1. skepticism (so as to filter out sciebam and fake method) which seeks to improve the strength of hypothesis (this is an ‘ally’ process and not peer review), and 2. stakeholders who are impacted or exposed to its risk. Hypothesis which imparts stakeholder risk, which is held inside proprietary cathedrals of authority – is not science, rather oppression by court definition.

It is developed from a construct – which is a type of educated guess (‘scintilla’ in the chart below). One popular method of pseudoscience is to bypass the early to mid disciplines of hypothesis and skip right from data refinement into intelligence, to accepted proof. This is no different ethically, from skipping right from a blurry photo of Blobsquatch, to conjecture that such cryptic beings are real and that they inhabit all of North America. It is simply a pattern in some data. However, in this case, blurry data which happened to fit or support a social narrative.

A hypothesis reduces, exposes and puts its magical assertion on trial.
A pseudo-hypothesis hides its magical assumptions woven into its epistemology and places nothing at risk thereafter.

Another method of accomplishing inference without due regard to science, is to skip past falsifying or countermanding information and simply ignore it. This is called The Duty to Address and Inform. A hypothesis, as part of its parsimony, cannot be presented in the blind – bereft of any awareness of prior art and evidence. To undertake such promotional activity is a sale job and not science. Why acknowledge depletion of plant food nutrients on the part of modern agriculture, when you have a climate change message to push? Simply ignore that issue and press your hypothesis anyway (see Examples A and B below).

However, before we examine that and other examples of such institutional pseudoscience, let’s first look at what makes for sound scientific hypothesis. Inside ethical skepticism, a hypothesis bears seven critical elements which serve to qualify it as science.

These are the seven elements which qualify whether or not an alternative hypothesis becomes real science. They are numbered in the flow diagram below and split by color into the three discipline streams of Indirect Study (Intelligence), Parsimony and Conservatism (Knowledge Continuity) and Direct Study (Mechanism).

A Few Examples

In the process of defining this philosophical basis over the years, I have reviewed several hundred flawed and agency-compliant scientific studies. Among them existed several key examples, wherein the development of hypothesis was weak to non-existent, yet the conclusion of the study was accepted as ‘finished science’ from its publishing onward.

Most institutional pseudoscience spins its wares under a failure to address and/or inform.

If you are going to accuse your neighbor of killing your cat, if their whereabouts were unknown at the time, then your hypothesis does not have to address such an unknown. Rather merely acknowledge it (inform). However much your neighbor disliked your cat (intelligence), if your neighbor was in the Cayman Islands that week, your hypothesis must necessarily address such mechanism. You cannot ignore that fact simply because it is inconvenient to your inductive/abductive evidence set.

Most all of these studies skip the hypothesis discipline by citing a statistical anomaly (or worse lack thereof), and employing a p-value masquerade as means to bypass the other disciplines of hypothesis and skip right to the peer review and acceptance steps of the scientific method. Examples A and B below fail in their duty to address critical mechanism, while Examples B and C fail in their duty to inform the scientific community of all the information they need, in order to tender peer review. Such studies end at the top left hand side of the graphic above and call the process done, based upon one scant set of statistical observation – in ethical reality not much more credible in strength than a single observation of Bigfoot or a UFO.

Example A – Failure in Duty to Address/Inform on Mechanism, Asking an Orphan Question (Sciebam), Fallacy of Explanitude, Linear Induction used when Deduction was Necessary (Methodical Deescalation)

Increasing CO2 threatens human nutrition. Meyers, Zanobetti, et. al. (Link)

In this study, and in particular Extended Data Table 1, a statistical contrast was drawn between farms located in elevated CO2 regions versus ambient CO2 regions. The contrast resulted in a p-value significance indicating that levels of  Iron, Zinc, Protein and Phytate were lower in areas where CO2 concentrations exhibited an elevated profile versus the global ambient average. This study was in essence a statistical anomaly; and while part of science, should never be taken to stand as neither a hypothesis, nor even worse a conclusion – as is indicated in the social skeptic ear-tickling and sensationalist headline title of the study ‘Increasing CO2 threatens human nutrition’. The study has not even passed the observation step of science (see The Elements of Hypothesis graphic above). Who allowed this conclusion to stand inside peer review? There are already myriad studies showing that modern (1995+) industrial farming practices serve to dramatically reduced crop nutrient levels.49 Industrial farms tend to be nearer to heavy CO2 output regions. Why was this not raised inside the study? What has been accomplished here is to merely hand off a critical issue of health risk, for placement into the ‘climate change’ explanitude bucket, rather than its address and potential resolution. It broaches the question, since the authors neither examined the above alternative, nor raised it inside their Discussion section – that they care neither about climate change nor nutrition dilution – viewing both instead as political football means to further their careers. It is not that they have to confirm this existing study direction, however they should at least acknowledge this in their summary of analytics and study limitations. The authors failed in their duty to address standing knowledge about industrial farming nutrient depletion. This would have never made it past my desk. Grade = C (good find, harmful science).

Example B – Failure in Both Duty to Inform of Intelligence and Duty to Address Mechanism, Fallacy of Explanitude, Orphan Question (Sciebam), Linear Induction Employed

Possible future impacts of elevated levels of atmospheric CO2 on human cognitive performance and on the design and operation of ventilation systems in buildings. Lowe, Heubner, et. al. (Link)

This study cites its review of the immature body of research surrounding the relationship between elevated CO2 and cognitive ability. Half of the studies reviewed indicated that human cognitive performance declines with increasing CO2 concentrations. The problem entailed in this study, similar to the Zanobetti study above in Example 1, is that it does not develop any underlying mechanism which could explain instances how elevated CO2 directly impacts cognitive performance. This is not a condition of ‘lacking mechanism’ (as sometimes the reality is that one cannot assemble such), rather one in which the current mechanism paradigm falsifies the idea. The study should be titled ‘Groundbreaking new understanding on the toxicity of carbon dioxide’. This is of earth-shattering import. There is a lot of science which needs to be modified if this study proved correct at face value. The sad reality is that the study does not leverage prior art in the least. As an experienced diver, I know that oxygen displacement on the order of 4 percentage points is where the first slight effects of cognitive performance come into play. Typical CO2 concentrations in today’s atmosphere are in the range of 400 ppm – not even in the relevant range for an oxygen displacement argument. However, I would be willing to accept this study in sciebam, were they to offer another mechanism of direct effect; such as ‘slight elevations in CO2 and climate temperature serve to toxify the blood’, for example. But no such mechanism exists – in other words, CO2 is only a toxicant as it becomes an asphyxiant.50 This study bears explanitude, it allows for an existing paradigm to easily blanket-explain an observation which might have otherwise indicated a mechanism of risk – such as score declines being attributable to increases in encephalitis, not CO2. It violates the first rule of ethical skepticism, If I was wrong, would I even know it? The authors failed in their duty to inform about the known mechanisms of CO2 interaction inside the body, and as well failed to address standing knowledge about industrial farming nutrient depletion. As well, this study was a play for political sympathy and club rank. Couching this pseudo-science with the titular word ‘Possible’ is not excuse to pass this off as science. Grade = D (inexpert find, harmful science).

Example C – Orphan Question, Failing in All Seven Elements of Hypothesis – Especially Duty to Inform of Intelligence and Wittgenstein Domain Definition (Wrong ages/Wrong study domain population and timeframe)

A Population-Based Study of Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Vaccination and Autism. Madsen, Hviid, et. al. (Link)

This is the notorious ‘Danish Study’ of the relationship between the MMR vaccination and observed rates of autism psychiatric confirmed diagnoses inside the Danish Psychiatric Central Register. These are confirmed diagnoses of autism spectrum disorders (Autism, ADD/PDD and Asperger’s) over a nine year tracking period (see Methodology and Table 2). In Denmark, children are referred to specialists in child psychiatry by general practitioners, schools, and psychologists if autism is suspected. Only specialists in child psychiatry diagnose autism and assign a diagnostic code, and all diagnoses are recorded in the Danish Psychiatric Central Register. The fatal flaw in this study resided in its data domain analyzed and the resulting study design. 77% of autism cases are not typically diagnosed until past 4.5 years of age. Based upon a chi-squared cumulative distribution fit at each individual μ below from the CDC, and 1.2 years degree of freedom, and 12 months of Danish bureaucratic bias results in a (.10 + .08 + .05) = 0.23 crude chance of detection by CDC statistical indices (outlined below) – or around a 77% chance of a false negative (Type II error) across the tripartite population being sampled. The preponderance of diagnoses in the ADD/PDD and Asperger’s sets serves to weight the average age of diagnosis well past the average age of the subjects in this nine year study – tracking patients from birth to an average age = 4.5 years at study end. See graphic to the above right, which depicts the Gompertzian age-arrival distribution function embedded inside this study’s population; an arrival distribution which Madsen and Hviid should have defined and accounted for – but failed to. This constituted a fatal exclusion bias.

In other words, the Hviid Study failed in its Element #2 Wittgenstein domain definition, in that it excluded 77% of its observation base through either incompetence, cleverness, or both.

From the CDC data on this topic, the mean age of diagnosis for ASD spectrum disorders in the United States, where particular focus has tightened this age data in recent years:51

   •  Autistic disorder: 3 years, 10 months
   •  ASD/pervasive developmental disorder (PDD): 4 years, 8 months
   •  Asperger disorder: 5 years, 7 months

Note: A study released 8 Dec 2018 showed a similar effect through data manipulation-exclusion techniques in the 2004 paper by DeStefano et al.; Age at first measles-mumps-rubella vaccination in children with autism and school-matched control subjects: a population-based study in metropolitan Atlanta. Pediatrics 2004;113:259-266.52

Neither did the study occur in a society which has observed a severe uptick in autism, nor during a timeframe which has been most closely associated with autism diagnoses, (2005+).53 Of additional note is the fact that school professionals refer non-profound autism diagnosis cases to the specialists in child psychiatry, effectively ensuring that all such diagnoses occurred after age 5, by practice alone. Exacerbating this is the fact that a bureaucratic infrastructure will be even more slow/fatal in posting diagnoses to a centralized system of this type. These two factors alone will serve to force large absences in the data, which mimic confirmatory negatives. The worse the data collection is, the more the study results favor what we want to see – a formal fallacy called utile absentia. The study even shows the consequent effect inversion (results which suggest that vaccines prevent or cure autism), incumbent with utile absentia. In addition, the overt focus on the highly precise aspects of the study, and away from its risk exposures and other low-confidence aspects and assumptions, constitutes a fallacy called idem existimatis (measure it with a micrometer, mark it with a grease pencil, cut it with an axe). I will measure the depth of the water into which you are cliff diving, to the very millimeter – but measure the cliff you are diving off of, to the nearest 100 feet. The diver’s survival is now an established fact of science by the precision of the water depth measure alone.

In other words this study did not examine the relevant domain of data acceptable to underpin the hypothesis which it purported to support. Forget mechanism and parsimony to prior art – as those waved bye-bye to this study a long time ago. Its conclusions were granted immunity and immediate acclaim because they fit an a priori social narrative held by their sponsors. It even opened with a preamble citing that it was a study to counter a very disliked study on the part of its authors. Starting out a hypothesis prosecution process purported to be of science, by being infuriated about someone else’s study results is not science, not skepticism, not ethical.

Accordingly, this study missed 80% of its relevant domain data. It failed in its duty to inform the scientific community of peers. It is almost as if a closed, less-exposed bureaucracy were chosen precisely because of its ability to both present reliable data, and yet at the same time screen out the maximum number of positives possible. Were I a criminal, I could not have selected a more sinister means of study design myself. This was brilliance in action. Grade = F (diabolical study design, poor science).

All of the above studies failed in their duty to inform. They failed in their responsibility to communicate the elements of hypothesis to the outside scientific community. They were sciebam – someone asked a question, poorly framed and without any background research – and by golly they got an answer. They sure got an answer. They were given free pass, because they conformed to political will. But they were all bad science.

It is the duty of the ethical skeptic to be aware of what constitutes true hypothesis, and winnow out those pretenders who vie for a claim to status as science.

The Ethical Skeptic, “The Elements of Hypothesis”; The Ethical Skeptic, WordPress, 4 Mar 2019; Web, https://wp.me/p17q0e-94J

Inversion — ECDO Theory: The Hidden Mechanism Driving Cataclysm, Cultural Tradition, and Climate

Taking pre-orders now !!! – order by clicking here: Inversion – ECDO Theory Book

A teaser extract from the upcoming Observer Ranch presentation, May 1 2026.

Remember Who You Are…

Since you are reading this, I will let you in on a little secret here: studies are forthcoming which will show the majority of older cities worldwide, and especially cities at higher elevations above 2250 ft, show a clear bias toward Np’ over our current north pole or any other alignment. The cities which show a clear bias towards the current north pole, are all in the ECDO inundation footprint. This will send ECDO Theory off the charts in interest. Get a part of the original work, and author’s touch, here, while you can. Once the big publishers get hold of this – it will be a different ballgame.

Coming April 2026 — A New Knowledge

It took more than two decades to assemble the line of research presented in this work — years spent in strategic analysis, intelligence work, materials science, complex initiative planning, detailed engineering and specification, construction, and operational discipline. During this long development of the theory, I gradually endured the internal struggles that accompany a worldview reshaped far outside the bounds of what was instilled in childhood or instruction. Accordingly, I do not underestimate the burden of dissonance that may settle upon the shoulders of a reader encountering this argument for the first time, or in a single sitting.

Despite the apparent darkness of its tone, the reader may discern an undercurrent of Gnostic optimism. I define faith not as a matter of holding to a set of doctrinal beliefs or performative deeds of virtue, but as the quiet art of living small lives with patience, love, and integrity — despite every temptation to submit to the contrary.

Hold one another close, for that is the only thing that is real. In this simple truth resides the joy each person must ultimately come to understand.

More is at play in our seemingly absurd circumstance than we are presently equipped to know. We are not alone …and never have been.

Any sufficiently advanced act of benevolence is indistinguishable from either malevolence or chance.

~ Ethical Skeptic’s Third Law of Advanced Intelligence



Pre-orders being accepted now, at Inversion – ECDO Theory