Then I found some guy doing a podcast to debunk the Larson film, the Larson film being the one I watn to watch, and he misrepresentes it right out of the gate: says that Larson claims that the conjunction of Juptiure with Regulus is what th wise men saw, presumably claiming that is the Star of Bethlehme. no no no and more no90. Good grief the guy can't even get that much straight. Noi. That particular conjunction is very ineteresting but it's presented as a sort of celestial annoyuncement of the coming birth which is foollowed by the sign of Virgo with the image of the virgin clothed in the sun with the moon at her feet, which Larson conclusdes is porbably the conception of the Messiah. AFTWER the Jupiter Regulus conjucntion which seems to be a sort of herald of such coming events.
The star itself comes nine months are the image of the virgin with the moon at her feet, occurs in June of three, no I think two b.c. an isa conunction of Jupiter with Venus. NOT Jupiter with Refulus. The guy obviously didn't watch the film at all, or didn't pay any attention to it if he watched it. The Jupiter Venus conjunction is a very likely candidate forthe Star because it's been recognized as the brightest celectial object in the sky EVER according to Larson, recogvnized by astronomers. And its ocurring nine months after the very lilkely date of the conception, when gabriel announced the pregnancy to Marry, the virgin with the moon at her feet, which is described in Revelation Twelve and libeterally d3epicted in the sky on Rosh Hashanah of Two BC, or three, I can't keep that straight, anyway that timing makes the MJupiter Venius conjustion very very likely to my mind. And Larson does do a ood job of making that case.
I know, I'm impatient, a sin I must overcome. So I didn't stick it out long enough to find out that guy's name who got it so wrong, just as I didn't watch any more of that other film. Oh well,. I still want to see Larson's film again and I can't find my own DVD of it but maybe I can borrow it bfrom my brother.
There's more to the film than the revelation of the likely star, a lot more. I'm so sick of debunkers who don't know what they are talking about.
Later: Heard just a bit more of that guy who already made the huge mistake of sayinhg Larson claims Jupiter Regulus was the Start which he did not. Then he says Larson claimsed that the biblical reference to the magi seeing the star in the east means risin gin the east which he did not say as I recall, of if he did it was as a possible alrtternative, because what he did say is that it probably means they were IN the east and seeing the start from there ishich is what this bguy didecides is the case witout noticing that that's what Larson said. Then he goes on to object to Larson's referring to the childkd the Magi saw as a toddler, and that bothered me too but because I count only six months from his bith which wouldn't make him a toddler yet, but this guy is saying something else and I dind't find out what and don't case.re .
He also says that retrograde motion is not a planet stopping, which is another really really stupid misrepresentaiton of what Larson said. HLarson was trying to explain who the star could stop over the town o Bethleheme and he realized that it was at that point that Jupiter went into retrograde, and that AT THAT POINT WHEN THE DIRECFTION FO MOVEMENT C HANGEWD, not DUIRNG retrogrtade but at the moment the direction changed, that the planet would appear to stop AT THAT POINT. This guy's name is not visible to me unfortunately because I'd love to be able to write it out and get him blasted.
\He's destroying Larson's reputation and getting it all wrong. This makes me mad.
