>Have you seen Ms Fiorello’s post blaming you in copying her analysis of the Lulin comet?
>

It does not surprise me at all. Ms Fiorello has accused Anton in other “crimes” as well. For instance, Anton’s article on Placidean Houses of Ibn Ezra (http://www.antonblog.net/astrology/ibn-ezra-as-placiduss-preincarnation/) was actually stolen from Cielo e Terra. That what Ms Fiorello claims in one of her spam-letters to me. What a bad luck for her. I am really the worst person to send this rubbish to. Anton based his article on the Russian translation of Ibn Ezra’s writings. The translation was performed by me and my partner, V. Apanasik, from the original Hebrew texts. Due to the fact that Anton is very well versed in the medieval mathematics, he had no trouble to convey Ibn Ezra’s house system principles to modern reader.

This proves that Ms. Fiorello lies, putting credibility of her other stories under serious doubt. A liar is not believed when he speaks the truth.

There are so absurd accusations that to answer on them is absurdly as well. As Socrat said: “If an ass bit you, you don’t drag him in court”. I think, the irrelevance of those complaints about imitation is obvious to everyone who has capability to understand the sense of the text: the only similarity between two texts is that both are dedicated to comet Luling. All the rest is different, and only a crazy mind could use this to blame me in plagiarism. Unfortunately, some people are incapable to understand this. I can analyse the content of this my post in detail for them.

First of all, the posts have absolutelly different ideas and reasons of writing. My post is devoted to the possible visibility of the comet. Comet’s appearance is one of the important phenomenon for traditional astrological interpretation over centuries. And this is generally known fact. Thereagainst, the Fiorello’s post is dovoted to the discovering of the comet with the telescope.

There are 131 lines in my post, whereas her post is much shorter and less informative. First 18 lines say about comet’s visibility, conditions of possible observation etc. There is nothing similar in Fiorello’s post.

Then 2 lines on Campanella’s book. This book is not mentioned by Fiorello, and her post doesn’t contain any quotation from this book. All quotations in my post translated from Latin by me. Why Campanella? Because his chapter on comets is quite suitable for my purpose. It is short, lapidary and well structured (Campanella’s book can be found at http://visualiseur.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k57271r . It is another edition, but it doesn’t matter in this case. See pp.89-94). It is easy to find that below I follow this chapter. In fact, the traditional rules for judging on comets are not a secret. They can be obtained without knowledge of Greek and Latin, and even without holding Italian translations from Greek and Latin made by Bezza, Faracovi etc. English speakers can found lot of useful information on this subject in so famous and widespread book as Lilly’s “England’s Propheticall Merline”.

Then 3 lines on green colour of the comet. I think, everybody can find that the comet has green colour in every report about this comet by any information agency, in spite of Fiorello’s claim on primogeniture of her mentioning of the comet’s colour. Alas, it is not her personal invention.

Then 5 lines of the quotation from Hephaistio of Thebes. My translation from Greek from August Engelbrecht “Hephaestion von Thebe und sein astrologisches Compendium”, Wien, 1887, p. 98. The picture with the text is from this book. Fiorello doesn’t mentions this text, say nothing about quotation. I wonder how could I, as she claims, “steal” something which is not there in her post at all?

Then 2 lines saying that the comet will be first seen rather in the East. There is nothing similar in Fiorello’s post.

Then 3 lines with mentioning “Ptolemeus de stellis cum caudis”. Fiorello mentions this text as well and gives a small quotation from it. Is Fiorello’s post the source of my mentioning of this text? No. This text is well-known. Its Italian translation by Giuseppe Bezza can be found in Giuseppe Bezza “Arcana Mundi: Antologia del pensiero astrologico antico”, Milan, 1995, pp. 660-662. Fiorello quotes from this book without mentioning the author of the Italian translation she used. The same she made in her post with the translation of this text – she mentions the number of the manuscript BN-Paris 7432 (it looks so cool for naive reader! I even can add: fo. 146v-151r. It doesn’t mean I’m the coolest, Bezza just gives the complete reference), but says nothing about Bezza’s translation she translated this text from. This Giuseppe Bezza’s book is famous enough. There is a review of this book in the famous magazine “The Traditional Astrologer”, issue 15, October 1997 pp. 29,30. A very good magazine by the way, I was a subscriber then.

Then 7 lines from Bonatti. Fiorello doesn’t mention this text: this is my translation from Latin from Guido Bonatti “Tractatus astronomie decem”, Augsburg 1491, p. 287r. The picture with the text is from this book.

Then 2 lines about the difference in the colour in Greek and Latin texts. There is nothing similar in Fiorello’s post.

Then 3 lines about the comets of Mercury from Campanella. Fiorello doesn’t mentions this text of Campanella.

Then 3 lines about comet’s brightness. There is nothing similar in Fiorello.

Then 7 lines about the period of visibility. There is nothing similar in Fiorello.

Then 3 lines about the movement against the sign’s succession. This peculiarity of the comet’s movement is mentioned in various reports of information agencies. More over, there are ephemeris of the comet below. I calculated it by myself from NASA’s ephemeris. The calculations were made with the tool you can find in this site. The tool is written by me. So, I could see this peculiarity of the comet’s movement making the ephemeris.

Then 4 lines on the position in a sign. Fiorello mentions position in a sign, but 1) it is the standard item mentioned in almost every text. 2) Fiorello mentions Aquarius, while the comet could be visible in Virgo.

Then 4 lines about maximal declination. There is nothing similar in Fiorello.

Then 5 lines about the chart of the following syzygy, comet’s crossing the ecliptic in the sign of Virgo. Fiorello mentions previous syzygy, she doesn’t give the exact quotation, nor mentions the sourse. I give the sourse and exact quotation.

Then 6 lines of comet’s ephemeris. They are calculated by me, as I said above. There is nothing similar in Fiorello.

Then 52 lines about comet’s movement close to the fixed star ρ Leonis and Saturn, about Lanar mansion, degree symbol etc. There is nothing similar in Fiorello.

Having the line numbers you can calculate the rate of similarity

Anton

Have you seen Ms Fiorello’s post blaming you in copying her analysis of the Lulin comet? All I can see is that two astrologers wrote two posts on the same comet – there is no further resemblance in method or style whatsoever. Are you going to defend yourself against such a cheap attack?

V.