Chapter 30: Halley's comet-the Great Deceiver

Did you know that comets have been, for centuries, considered by astronomers as the most important celestial objects to be studied? And did you know that they have never reached any rational / definitive conclusions as to their orbital motions? In fact, the motions of the famous Halley’s comet remain still today an ardent matter of debate, since it (apparently) behaves in a most unpredictable manner. As it visits our Solar System, it will play peekaboo with earthly observers, as it revolves around the Earth and the Sun; whenever it passes in front or behind the Sun, it will be invisible to us. Halley's comet is thus a deceptive joker - as it only shows its face on brief occasions, leaving us earthly observers to wonder how exactly it moves around space. In fact, comets have been deceiving and confusing astronomers for millennia - and even more so since the advent of the Copernican, heliocentric model.

”The return of Halley's comet suddenly made comets the headliners of astronomy, and for several decades it seemed that the greatest feat any astronomer could achieve was to discover comets.” “Halley’s comet” – the Free library

Everyone has heard about Halley’s comet, the most famous comet in our skies - and the most intensely studied of them all. Fewer people will be aware that comet Halley is the greatest oddity of astronomy, since its orbital period is (supposedly) wildly irregular or - as astronomers like to call it - “chaotic”. In spite of this, we are told that comet Halley provided the ultimate proof of Sir Isaac Newton’s theories. Indeed, as Halley's comet returned in 1758 (as predicted by Newton’s mentor, Edmond Halley ), this was hailed as the greatest triumph of Newton's gravitational laws:

“Its discovery was hailed as a triumph of scientific reasoning and Newtonian physics. By its appearance at this time, the truth of the Newtonian Theory of the Solar System is demonstrated to the conviction of the whole world, and the credit of the astronomers is fully established and raised far above all the wit and sneers of ignorant men.” A Brief History of Halley’s comet” - at

In hindsight (as will now be thoroughly demonstrated), those ‘sneers of ignorant men’ were quite rightful and well-founded: the many theories and ‘explanations’ for the observed behavior of Halley’s comet soon turned into a bewildering hodgepodge of assumptions and complex numerical integrations. Indeed, current cometary theory is riddled with aberrations, the most glaring of them being that comet Halley’s periodicity would somehow fluctuate by as many as +/-6 years - unlike ANY other celestial bodies in our Solar System: according to modern / official tables, the intervals between the returns of comet Halley can be as short as 73 years - or as long as 79 years! Oddly enough, these upper & lower ‘extreme’ figures are rarely mentioned in astronomy textbooks, most of which simply report (correctly, in fact) that Halley’s comet returns “every 75 or 76 years” - for a mean period of 75.5 years). As we shall see, the TYCHOS model can demonstrate that comet Halley has, in fact, an average (and quite stable and regular) period of 75.66 years.

Here is how Halleys’ comet is currently believed to move 'around' our Solar System. Yes, we are actually told that it proceeds along this highly elliptical, cigar-shaped orbit:

Above: Illustration from Isaac Asimov's "Guide to Halley's Comet" (1985)

Today, here is what ESA (the European Space Agency) has to say about comets:

”TESTING GRAVITY: HOW COMETS HELPED TO PROVE NEWTON RIGHT. In the seventeenth century, science was thriving across Europe. The concept of a heliocentric Solar System was slowly spreading, bringing with it a reignited curiosity for astronomy and a lessened fear of previously mysterious celestial objects, such as comets. Cometary science was to take many great steps forward in the coming centuries - but first, comets had a vital part to play in developing one of the most fundamental theories in all of physics: Newton's law of universal gravitation.” “TESTING GRAVITY: HOW COMETS HELPED TO PROVE NEWTON RIGHT” - on the ESA website

Such boastful and celebratory statements are to be found all over the literature. Yet, as we shall see, the titanic efforts deployed over the years in order to try and “justify” comet Halley’s (apparent) irregular periods were based on a veritable comedy of errors. This was followed by a flow of ’exotic’ ad hoc theories dreamed up by our world’s scientific community - in what reads like a crass (yet oft exhilarating) science fiction novel. Among the more extravagant theorems is that Halley’s comet would somehow be drastically slowed down and / or accelerated (by “perturbating gravitational forces”) as it transits in the vicinity of Uranus, Jupiter, Saturn or Venus. Indeed, we are seriously asked to accept that these imagined perturbations would explain why the orbital period of Halley’s comet would fluctuate by up to +/-6 years (i.e. by as much as 8% of its mean period of 75.66 years!). Over time, a host of assorted (and entirely speculative) “non-gravitational effects” then had to be added on top of those ghostly “gravitational perturbations” - since the Newtonian equations soon turned out to be inadequate for predicting the comet’s observed returns with any degree of acceptable precision…

“Our results show that the behaviour of the non-gravitational effects in the motion of Comet Halley with time is a very important problem which requires a careful investigation.” “Investigations of the long-term motion of Comet Halley: What is a cause of the discordance of results obtained by different authors?” - by Sitarski, G. & Ziolkowski, K. - 1986

In this chapter, it will be thoroughly demonstrated (and illustrated) that each time that Halley’s comet pays a visit to our Solar System, it will pass very close to the Earth on TWO SUCCESSIVE YEARS (and may occasionally be seen (telescopically) up to three or even four successive years - depending on certain ideal conditions); as it is, this peculiar fact is at the root of the dire confusion surrounding its periodicity. It is indeed quite ironic that Halley’s comet (which, by all accounts, provided “vital and definitive proof of Newton’s law of universal gravitation”) can now provide vital and definitive proof in support of the TYCHOS model.

At this point, I would strongly recommend the readers to run the Tychosium 3D simulator on their laptops. You may then activate “Halley’s comet” (by checking the ‘Halley’ box in the “Planets” menu) so as to get familiar with the comet’s celestial motions. You may then select any given date and verify comet Halley’s positions in our skies. If you then activate the “Trace” function for Halley’s and then push the “Run” button, you shall soon see that - in the TYCHOS model - the comet proceeds around a circular (albeit trochoidal) orbit, much like all of the planets in our Solar System. Here’s what a full 75.66-year orbital period of Halley’s comet looks like:

Before we get on, I should probably clarify and illustrate what I mean by “TWO SUCCESSIVE YEARS” (as stated above). For instance, here is why Halley’s comet will make two successive close passages to Earth - each time that it visits our Solar System; the below screenshot (from the Tychosium simulator) shows how Halley’s comet passed in 1985 and 1986. During its 1st passage (around June 1985) it wasn’t visible by anyone on Earth simply because it was swamped by the sun’s glare. During its 2nd passage (around April 1986) it was then observed by people located in Earth’s Southern Hemisphere:

“As-Above-So-Below” is how I like to call two such successive passages of Halley’s comet - as it makes two passes above and then below the Earth. These peculiar double passages occur most precisely every 227 years (75.66 X 3); for instance, “As-Above-So-Below” passages occurred in 1304 & 1305, in 1531 & 1532, in 1758 & 1759 and in 1985 & 1986 (all separated by almost precisely 227 years). On other occasions however, Halley’s comet will circle around Earth in slightly different manners (as we shall see further on).

Curiously, in the Wikipedia entry for Halley's comet we may find the below diagram of its last visible passage (around April 1986). It shows the comet passing close to Earth on April 10, 1986 (as it did) - and then, as it proceeds into the distance, starts tracing trochoidal loops - quite similar to those traced in the Tychosium simulator! It would be interesting to contact the authors of that diagram and ask them just how they arrived at such a 'conceptual' representation of Halley's motions:

Source of above Wikipedia diagram

Another most interesting aspect of Halley’s circular-trochoidal orbit is that the width of its loops are commensurate to the diameter of the Sun’s orbit (2AU). This would seem to suggest that the comet might, perhaps, simply be an ejecta of the Sun which has (for reasons that may intuitively be envisioned) maintained its original, solar orbital momentum and dynamics. As it is, many (or all?) comets may possibly be small 'fireballs' ejected from the Sun - although this certainly needs further study.

In any event, this all helps explain the dire confusion of our world’s top astronomers and mathematicians as to comet Halley’s periodicity. The trochoidal path of Halley’s comet (as traced in the Tychosium simulator) now provides clear and demonstrable answers to this longstanding quandary which has beffudled them for several centuries - and up to this very day. Needless to say, the core reason for their failure to realize the true / actual motions of Halley’s comet can be ascribed to their dogmatic and uncritical acceptance of the Copernican / heliocentric model of our Solar System: since they believe that the Earth revolves swiftly around the Sun (instead of being near-motionless), each time that Halley’s comet visits our Solar System, they will engage in formidably complex mathematical calculations as to the relative celestial positions, month after month, of our planet and the comet.

Another astonishing fact revealed by the Tychosium simulator is that comet Halley’s (constant) orbital speed is identical to that of the Sun (i.e. 107226km/h). This can be readily determined by counting the days that the comet employs to traverse the PVP orbit’s diameter - from side to side. In the below screenshot from the Tychosium, we see that it takes 44 days for Halley’s comet to do do so - just like the Sun does, as illustrated in Chapter 11.


Let us now compare the OFFICIAL roster of comet Halley’s periodic transits across our Solar System with the roster proposed by the TYCHOS model. The latter will, as explained above, contain ‘double-transits’ - since the comet will always pass very close to Earth on two successive years.

THE OFFICIAL ROSTER of Halley’s historical (single) transits: 240 B.C./ 164 B.C./ 87 B.C./ 12 B.C./ 66 AD/ 141/ 218/ 295/ 374/ 451/ 530/ 607/ 684/ 760/ 837/ 912/ 989/ 1066/ 1145/ 1222/ 1301/ 1378/ 1456/ 1531/ 1607/ 1682/ 1759/ 1835/ 1910/ 1986/ 2061/ 2134 Source: "The Greatest Comets in History"

As you can see, the officially-predicted interval between Halley’s passage in 2061 and 2134 is only 73 years. Yet, the interval between Halley’s passage between, for instance, 1222 and 1301 was (according to the official roster)79 years! We are thus asked to believe that Halley’s comet’s orbital period can somehow fluctuate by as many as 6 years! Now, pray tell, WHY would that be? Wasn’t Newton’s law of gravitation supposed to apply equally all around the Universe? What sort of ‘exception to the rule’ would possibly regulate the (supposed) “chaotic behavior” of Halley’s comet?

THE TYCHOS ROSTER of Halley’s historical (double) transits: 210 & 209 B.C./ 134 & 133 B.C./ 59 & 58 B.C./ 17 & 18 / 93 & 94/ 168 & 169 / 244 & 245/ 320 & 321/ 395 & 396 / 471 & 472/ 547 & 548/ 623 & 624/ 698 & 699/ 774 & 775/ 850 & 851/ 925 & 926/ 1001 & 1002/ 1077 & 1078/ 1152 & 1153/ 1228 & 1229/ 1304 & 1305/ 1380 & 1381/ 1455 & 1456/ 1531 & 1532/ 1607 & 1608/ 1682 & 1683/ 1758 & 1759/ 1834 & 1835/ 1909 & 1910/ 1985 & 1986/ 2061 & 2062/ 2136 & 2137

Note that ALL the Tychos roster’s intervals between Halley’s passages are perfectly constant & regular - with an average period of 75.66 years. As shown in the Tychosium simulator, every 227 years (3 X 75.66periodic), Halley’s comet will return in almost the exact same place in our skies. This is, in fact, very similar to our Moon’s behavior which returns in virtually the ‘same place’ after three Saros cycles (or one Exeligmos cycle). We may therefore say that comet Halley’s 75.66-year cycle and 227-year cycle are equivalent to the Saros and Exeligmos cycles of our Moon. Has anyone seen or noticed this before? No: only the TYCHOS model can claim and demonstrate this remarkable equivalence.

One may well say that the TYCHOS model actually supports Newton’s fundamental claim that “physics work the same everywhere”. Newton himself, however, concluded that comets moved around extremely elliptical, cigar-shaped orbits - in stark contradiction and much unlike all the other celestial bodies in our skies… Why Sir Isaac Newton reached such a bizarre and counter-intuitive conclusion has remained a mystery to this day - but I shall now offer a tentative (or definitive?) answer to this question. In any event, the fact that his cigar-shaped cometary orbits were then universally accepted as “Truth” goes to show how a man elevated by his peers to near-Godlike status can get away with almost any fanciful (and self-contradictory) claim.


“Great Comet of 1680” - Wikipedia

As we enter this important (nay, crucial) section of this chapter, I wish to make it very clear that astronomers still claim that the so-called “Great Comet of 1680” (a.k.a “Kirch’s comet” - or “Newton’s comet) had nothing to do with Halley’s comet - but was an entirely different comet which ‘just happened’ to pass close to Earth a couple of years prior to comet Halley’s 1682 passage.

What I am about to recount (and uncover) has to be one of the most egregious instances of how a single erroneous observation can lead astray the progress of astronomical knowledge and, indeed, the entire course of science. The “Great Comet of 1680” was notoriously used by Isaac Newton to ‘put to the test’ his law of universal gravitation. In fact, and as only few people may remember, Newton’s cometary theory was founded on the “Great Comet of 1680” - a.k.a. “Newton’s Comet”:

“NEWTON’S COMET 1680-1681 : The comet that was observed by skilled observers, astronomers for the first time in history. Newton's cometary theory is based on it. Also, it was the first comet that was discovered telescopically (by Gottfried Kirch and others). None of the more ancient Comets of which we have any record was so closely observed as this. It was observed by a large number of scientific people, and it was mainly from observations of this Comet, that Sir Isaac Newton, as set forth in great length in his "Principia" evolved his cometary theory. In Proposition XLI, Problem 21, "from three observations given to determine the orbit of a Comet moving in a parabola'' after giving his calculations and drawings, Newton says, "Let the Comet of the year 1680 be proposed." Newton's theories evolved from the observations of this Comet, made by Flamsteed, Halley and others, and lie at the foundation of all modern learning on the subject of Cometary orbits.” “Newton’s Comet 1680-1681”

That "extraordinary hairpin turn" of Halley's comet was in fact a matter of controversy for some time - between Newton and Flamsteed...

But let us start from the beginning of this most epochal (and dreadfully ruinous) observational mix up : on November 14, 1680, the German astronomer Gottfried Kirch saw an object in his telescope that he (mistakenly) interpreted as a comet. It is important to know that Kirch never saw any cometary tail trailing that faint object (a rather dull dot of light which he initially thought was some never-seen-before nebula). Here’s an extract from a paper titled “First discovery of the Great Comet of 1680”:

”Kirch noticed the comet first at Coburg, early on the morning of the 14th of November, 1680, and seems to have felt a natural pride at being the first to detect a comet with the assistance of a telescope before it had been seen with the naked eye. It was, at the time, not far from the planet Mars, and was just visible to the naked eye. At first, he doubted whether it was a new comet, or a nebula similar to that in the girdle of Andromeda; but its motion soon decided that it was the former.” “First discovery of the great comet of 1680” - by Lynn. W.T. (1888)

In other words, Kirch saw a faint object close to Mars (moving prograde across the skies) - but although it had no tail, he just decided that it had to be a new comet! As it is, other observers (e.g. Brattle and Foster) also reported that same dull object (of November 1680): here’s an extract from a paper:

1680: "Morning comet, observed by Thomas Brattle and John Foster, disappears sometime in November, too close to the Sun to observe."

1681: "Evening comet appears, observed by Thomas Brattle and John Foster. By either genius or ignorance they conclude that this is the same comet as the one they just saw last year."

“Harvard College Observatory”

So we learn that the initial object observed in November disappeared - soon after having been observed on November 14, 1680; about a month later, a large comet with a long tail made its spectacular appearance (in the opposite quadrant of our skies) - and it was eventually concluded that it must have been the same object that was observed a month earlier. Alright; so let’s now see what that dull object (“close to Mars”) first observed in November 1680 by Kirch, Brattle and Foster must have been. As we consult the Tychosium simulator, we find that asteroid EROS was in fact transiting close to Mars (as seen from Earth) on November 14, 1680! As it is, on that very date, the JPL/ NASA simulator has both asteroid EROS and the (supposed) “Great Comet of 1680”” transiting at virtually the exact same place in our skies!

Moreover, the Tychosium has EROS passing at 0.43AU from Earth (on November 14, 1680) - while the Wikipedia tells us that “the Great Comet of 1680” passed at 0.42AU from Earth (on November 30, 1680). Now, is anyone willing to chalk all of this up to some “random, astronomical coincidence”? I hope not. As you can see in the above graphic, the JPL simulator has asteroid Eros and the “1680 comet” transiting in virtually the ‘same place’ on 1680-11-14! I trust that rational thinkers will agree that what Kirch (et al) saw in their telescopes on November 14, 1680 was evidently nothing but EROS (i.e. the very first near-Earth asteroid to be observed which, according to the Wikipedia, “was discovered by German astronomer C.G. Witt at the Berlin Observatory on 13 August 1898”).

Then, as previously mentioned, around mid-December 1680 a large comet with an impressive tail suddenly appears at the opposite side of Earth. As of historical records, this blazing comet (reputedly “one of the brightest comets of the 17th century”) was observed to descend in our skies. On December 29, 1680 - it was observed at about 21h of RA, just below the small Delphinus star cluster. Well, according to the Tychosium simulator, this is precisely the location and trajectory of none other than Halley’s comet - on December 29, 1680!

The “1680 comet” in the Stellarium simulator (on December 29, 1680)

Most interestingly, a famous medal was minted back in those days (see bottom left of my above graphic): it depicted the actual location of the “Great Comet of 1680”, just below Delphinus. The below-linked paper by Robert McIvor argues convincingly that the anonymous author of this medal had to be a quite accomplished and rigorous astronomer - having correctly placed the comet in the portion of the sky where it was actually observed.
“Was this 1681 Medal a Lucky Charm or a Star Map?”- by Robert S. McIvor (2012)

We may thus draw the following, preliminary conclusions:

  • The “Great Comet of 1680” was mistakenly identified on November 14, 1680 by Kirch (et al) as a comet: it was, in fact, the yet-to-be-discovered EROS near-Earth asteroid.

  • The “Great Comet of 1680” (which then suddenly appeared on the opposite side of Earth in December 1680) was none other than Halley’s comet.

  • There was NO such thing as the “Great Comet of 1680”: it was just the first appearance of Halley’s comet - as it approached Earth in December of 1680. Halley’s comet was then again observed (whenever it emerged from the Sun’s glare) in 1681, 1682 and 1683 - but more about that later.

Indeed, we may further realize that the (mis-identified) “Great Comet of 1680” was, in all likelihood, the prime cause wich led Sir Isaac Newton to imagine (and formulate mathematically) the absurd, cigar-shaped cometary “orbits”. Until then, most astronomers (including Kepler) had thought that comets moved in straight lines, passing only once across our Solar System - never to return again. Other astronomers thought that comets come in pairs - moving in opposite directions! In fact, Newton himself had intially argued (in a famous controversy with Royal Astronomer Flamsteed) that the ‘comet of 1680’ and the ‘comet of 1681’ were two separate comets. Here follows a brief summary of Flamsteed‘s position on this matter:

” In 1680, The Royal Astronomer, John Flamsteed, gathered observational data about a massive comet that passed Earth. At this time, astronomers thought that comets came in pairs: to the general observer, it appeared as though one comet would go past the earth and get lost in the sun, and then another would arrive from the opposite direction. John Flamsteed made extremely accurate observations of this new comet in 1680, and he became convinced that there was only one comet, not a pair of comets. Moreover, he thought that the comet did not move in a circular pattern, but rather, in an ellipse. However, Flamsteed incorrectly believed that the comet only approached the sun and was forcibly repelled by its cosmic rays, which sent it careening back the way it came. He did not think that it traveled around the sun.” “John Flamsteed, Isaac Newton, and the Comet of 1680”

Recommended reading: “A Change of Mind: Newton and the Comet(s?) of 1680 and 1681” - by David Topper

Eventually, Newton’s mind was led astray by one single, spurious astronomical observation which was reported to him (i.e. the ‘accidental’ sighting of asteroid Eros in November 1680). It is hard to overstate the crucial importance of this observational blunder or, if you will, ‘mis-identification’ of that 1680 celestial body: it spurred the very idea of those bizarre, cigar-shaped cometary paths - and their tight ‘U-turns’ around the Sun. Make no mistake: this unfortunate mix up (between an asteroid and a comet) is certainly no minor matter: it effectively consacrated Sir Isaac Newton (what with his ‘laws’ of universal gravitation) to a near-Godlike status; today, to dare question his sacrosanct “Principia Mathematica” (which contains a large fold-out drawing of his imagined trajectory of “the Great Comet of 1680”) is tantamount to heresy - in most academic circles.


Two very odd circumstances (in Germany and in France) surround the famed return of Comet Halley in 1758, an all-important event which, as mentioned earlier, was hailed as “the triumph and definitive confirmation” of Edmond Halley’s and Isaac Newton’s theories and predictions.

ODD CIRCUMSTANCE N°1: In Germany, a potato farmer and amateur astronomer named Georg Palitzsch was credited to have first observed the return of the famous comet, on December 25, 1758. Strangely enough, the official / scholarly Dresden document that announced his finding made no mention that it was, in fact, the comet predicted by Halley! Here’s a brief overview of these events - as related by Gary A. Becker:

“What was indeed remarkable about his find was that Palitzsch had succeeded in winning the competition against some of the best professional astronomers in Europe, who were also searching for the comet, and who were much better equipped to recover it first. To their embarrassment, Palitzsch’s discovery came four weeks prior to the next independent sighting, which was made by the great French astronomer and comet seeker, Charles Messier (1730-1817). Messier sighted the comet on January 21, 1759. He had been jealously anticipating that he would win the competition to see it first, and rightfully so, for his search had been in progress for about 18 months. The first published announcement of Palitzsch’s find occurred the day before Messier independently saw the comet. Hofmann wrote an article which appeared in the second part of the Dresden Scholarly Announcement of 1759 under the title, “Report of the Comet which has been seen since the 25th of December.” Curiously enough, the document made no claim that this was the comet predicted by Halley over one-half century earlier.” “The Christmas Comet of Johann Palitzsch” – by Gary A. Becker

ODD CIRCUMSTANCE N° 2: In France, an even stranger episode took place; as the young Charles Messier ‘rediscovered’ Halley’s comet in his telescope on January 21, 1759 (almost four weeks after Palitzsch), he promptly shared his finding with his allegedly “bad-tempered” old boss, Joseph-Nicolas Delisle. Inexplicably, Delisle immediately ordered Messier to keep the finding a secret! In fact, the Academy of Sciences only announced Messier’s January sighting on April 25, 1759 - as comet Halley was, by then, extremely close to the Earth and easily visible (with naked eyes) in our skies.

” Charles Messier (1730-1817) rediscovered the comet on 21 January 1759 and followed it until 5 February, where it came too close to the Sun to remain observable. But Messier was only the assistant of Joseph-Nicolas Delisle (1688-1768). Delisle, who wanted to be the first to report the discovery to the Academy of Sciences, imposed the secret to Messier. The other Parisian astronomers, for their part, feared the wrath of Delisle, who had a bad temper, and did not attempt to find the comet. However, on April 1, Delisle and La Caille received a letter from Germany announcing the rediscovery of the comet by Palitzsch. Disaster! Unless completely losing face, it was no longer possible to keep the secret: Messier announced to several members of the Academy that he had seen the comet on 21 January and had also just seen it again that very night. He traced the route of the comet on a large map that he and Delisle presented to the king. The official announcement of the rediscovery by the Academy of Sciences took place only on April 25. This was very late; the comet was now very bright and easily seen.” “Halley’s, the first periodic comet”

Here’s an interesting extract from David Levy’s “Guide to Observing and Discovering comets” which headline is “THE COMET FERRET” (the nickname of Charles Messier whose obsession in discovering new comets and asteroids became legendary):

Source:David Levy's Guide to Observing and Discovering Comets

These most bizarre and puzzling - yet well-documented events bring up three obvious questions:

A: Why wasn’t Palitzsch’s comet of December 25, 1758 initially announced as being Halley’s comet (although he is today recognized as the man who first witnessed its 1758 return)?

B: Why did Delisle order Messier, his young assistant, to keep quiet about his January 21, 1759 sighting?

C: Why did the Academy of Sciences delay until April 25, 1759 their announcement of Halley’s approach?

I shall now (with the help of the Tychosium similator) submit an illustrated hypothesis as to what may well have prompted all of these oddities - and provide rational answers to the questions A, B and C :

A: Palitzsch’s sightings of December 1758 were initially questioned, as he apparently (as far as I know) never provided the exact celestial positions / ephemeris data of Halley’s comet. Even if he did so, the scholars in Dresden must have been in doubt about his observations, since Halley’s was seen moving PROGRADE across the skies (remember: Halley’s comet is believed to only ever move RETROGRADE).

B: Delisle is reported to have witnessed his young assistant’s discovery in their telescope. He must have been absolutely horrified to see that the comet was moving in PROGRADE direction. He therefore ordered Messier to keep quiet about his discovery - lest he be ridiculed by all of his peers.

C: The Academy of Sciences happily announced the passage of Halley’s comet on April 25, 1759 - since the comet had then reversed direction (as viewed from Earth) and was now finally moving RETROGRADE (against the star background). The Newtonian (and Copernican) theories were thus salvaged - together with the pride, reputation and credibility of the entire world’s scientific community. Phew!...

You may now justly ask yourselves: why was Messier, known as the greatest comet-finder of all times, ‘beaten’ by the German farmer & amateur astronomer - even though he spent 18 months feverishly scouring the skies for comet Halley’s all-important 1758 return? Well, here’s what we may read on the Italian Wikipedia:

“Messier showed great will on that occasion, spending the nights of nearly 18 months at the top of the observatory tower looking for the comet in an area of the sky where it could not be (his chart was simply wrong).” Charles Messier – Wikipedia

That’s right: Charles Messier (the foremost comet-hunter of all times) spent 18 months feverishly - yet vainly - looking for comet Halley’s return … in the wrong part of our skies! There can hardly be any better evidence in support of my assertion that our best astronomers have been utterly confused - for the last few centuries - due to their unshakable and dogmatic acceptance of the Copernican / heliocentric configuration of our Solar System.

You may now rightly ask yourselves: ”Are there any historical reports of comets observed a year or two before or after Halley’s ‘official’ passages? And if so, can it be shown that they were, in fact, Halley’s comet”? The answers to these two good questions are: yes - and yes. I like to call them the ‘Coincidental Comets’ and, as we presently shall see, there were a great many of them. Of course, the odds of "other" comets consistently appearing just around each visit of Halley's comet to our Solar System are, pardon the pun, simply 'astronomical'...


In astronomy almanachs, one may find (almost unfailingly) observational reports of various comets that just happened (‘COINCIDENTALLY’) to pass close to the Earth one or two years prior to / or after any given return of comet Halley. Now, since Halley’s comet is believed to swish around our Solar System at great speed and make a U-turn around the Sun, it is thought that it can only have been viewed once within a given year (well, at least in the pre-telescope days) as it traversed our Solar System; therefore, all cometary sightings (reported one or two years before or after a transit of Halley’s) are deemed to have been coincidental transits of entirely different comets. Moreover - and most importantly - whenever any of those “coincidental comets” were observed to move prograde (i.e. in the same direction as our planets) astronomers would quickly dismiss them as possible sightings of comet Halley, since they believe that it only ever proceeds ‘retrograde’, i.e. in the opposite direction of our planets.

None of those ‘Coincidental Comets’ have thus been officially identified as Halley’s comet. Some of them have been given other names (e.g. “The Great Comet of 1680”, “Boguslawski’s comet”, “The Great January Comet of 1910”, "Dunlop's comets",etc. ) - and most of them have been classified as ‘long-period comets’ (i.e. returning only every X- thousands of years or so!). Still others are believed to have passed only once in our Solar System - never to return again!... As we go along, it should become clear just how astronomers have desperately tried to justify those “Coincidental Comets” (some of them moving in the 'wrong' direction!) that were observed to pass near Earth a couple of years before or after the ‘officially sanctioned’ passages of Halley’s comet.


Let us start with the ‘Coincidental Comets’ (in 1680, 1681 and 1683) surrounding the official passage of Halley’s comet in 1682. Keep in mind that only the 1682 sighting was deemed to be Halley’s comet - and is still reckoned today to have been its one-and-only passage around that time. The comets seen on 1680/(1681), 1682 and 1683 - as of historical documents:
Source: “WHAT IS HALLEY’S COMET?” - Universe Today

Here is how the TYCHOSIUM simulator depicts Halley's celestial positions on these successive dates:

As you can see, Halley’s comet was (according to the Tychosium) quite plausibly within sight in all of those years - and even on July 27, 1680 (when it would have been just 2.8AU away from Earth). On the other hand, the official JPL/NASA ephemeris data would have Halley’s comet as far away as 9.1AU (!) on July 27, 1680. This is probably yet another reason why the “Great Comet of 1680” never was considered as a possible early sighting of comet Halley.


Let us now take a further look at the next passage of Halley’s comet - around the year 1759 (as already discussed above). The ATLAS OF GREAT COMETS has the closest passage of Halley's comet (on April 26, 1759) at 0.1225AU :

Well, the Tychosium simulator has Halley’s comet making its closest passage to Earth precisely on April 26, 1759 - at 0.11AU! A pretty close match, you may agree:

Furthermore, astronomy literature mentions two other ‘Coincidental Comets’ which were observed in 1757 and 1758. Yet, both were quickly dismissed as being Halley’s comet:

I trust that the attentive and rational-minded reader will sense where I am going with this. But there’s more. A bunch of funny things happened before and during the next passage of Halley’s comet, around the year 1835.

“DUNLOP’S COMETS” OF 1833 and 1834

According to the paper by T. Henderson linked below, two comets were observed in 1833 and 1834 by James Dunlop at the Paramatta observatory (Australia). The ‘two’ comets were observed to move prograde. As we saw earlier, astronomers had to outright dismiss the hypothesis that these two sightings might have been early apparitions of Halley’s comet - since its orbital motion around our Solar System is believed to be retrograde (i.e. in the opposed direction of our planets).

-‘Dunlop’s first comet’ transited at about 17h of RA in mid-October 1833.

-‘Dunlop’s second comet’ transited at about 21h40min of RA on March 21, 1834

As it happens, on those two dates the Tychosium simulator shows comet Halley moving in prograde direction - and transiting at about 17h of RA and 21h30min of RA respectively! “Observations of a Comet in 1833, and of another in 1834, observed; at Paramatta by Mr. Dunlop”

Evidently, “Dunlop’s comets” of 1833 and 1834 were, in fact, none other than Halley’s comet.


According to officialdom, comet Halley transited at perihelion - i.e. closest to the Sun - in November 1835 (in poor agreement with the Tychosium simulator which has Halley's comet passing closest to Earth around April 1835 - about seven months earlier).

That pesky November 1835 passage had me scratching my head for a good while. After all, the Tychosium agreed quite nicely with all of the more ‘recent’ Halley's comet officially-listed passages (between 1380 and 1986). So why was the 1835 passage so "wrong" in the Tychosium? Why does it transit (in the Tychosium) closest to the Earth in April 1835 - rather than in November 1835? Well, one fine day I found out that a fellow named Boguslawski had actually observed a comet in April 1835 - and had been awarded a medal for it…

”Palm Heinrich Ludwik von Boguslawski, (1789-1851) was a Polish/German professor of astronomy and head of the observatory in Breslau. Boguslawski discovered a comet in [April ] 1835 and calculated its course. For this he was awarded the first gold comet medal and the comet was named after him. “ Source: “Letter from Palm Heinrich Ludwik von Boguslawski”

In the Catalog of Comets (1800-1899), I then found this priceless description of the exact celestial positions of “Boguslawski’s comet”:

Source: “Catalog of Comets (1800-1899) - by Gary W. Kronk, Maik Meyer, David Allan John Seargent

So let's see: the comet observed by Boguslawski - and successively by Kreil - was observed by these two skilled astronomers to have behaved as follows:

  • On April 21, 1835 Boguslawski observed it at RA: 11h58min and DECL: -12°07'.

  • On May 28, 1835 Karl Kreil observed it at RA: 10h04m and DECL: +2°49'.

Moreover, the "new" comet was calculated to have passed closest to Earth on April 11, 1835.

This compares to the celestial positions of Halley's comet in the Tychosium simulator which are as follows :

  • On April 21, 1835 > RA: 10h52m DECL: -12°44'

  • On May 28, 1835 > RA: 9h59m DECL: +3°13'

Moreover, Halley's comet was closest to Earth (according to the Tychosium) just around April 11, 1835.

Here's a screenshot (from the Tychosium simulator) of this well-documented scenario:

You may now ask yourselves : "has Boguslawski's comet returned to Earth since then?". No! It was only ever seen in 1835, never to return again! Of course, it should now be crystal clear why “Boguslawski’s comet” never reappeared: it was - quite obviously - none other than Halley’s comet.

Now, what you need to know is that the most eminent French & British astronomers of the time were all expecting Halley's comet to return in the month of November 1835 (i.e. about 7 months later than the appearance of "Boguslawski's comet” - in April 1835). This prediction had attained some sort of general consensus, but only following many academic controversies and intricate calculi involving 'planetary / gravitational perturbations' (believed to significantly alter the comet's orbital speed). Hence, we may assume that those French & British bigwigs were more than happy to let Mr. Boguslawski give his name to this "inconvenient" comet (that showed up 7 months earlier than predicted), since it would have caused a major embarrassment to the French & British scientific community...


Let us now take a look at comet Halley’s famous 1910 passage - a spectacular event which left a memorable impression, as a dreadful “End of World” media propaganda surrounding its imminent arrival caused a dire, worldwide panic :

“The scientific debate didn’t stop less scrupulous people from taking advantage of the situation. Suddenly, anti-comet pills flooded the market. One promised to serve as an elixir for escaping the wrath of the heavens. Gas masks became best-sellers and some even bought up “comet-protecting umbrellas.”

This transit was preceded by telescopic observations in 1908 and 1909 of its approach. This time around, astronomers actually made a drawing of the comet’s observed path - as it approached our Solar System. In my below graphic, I compare their drawing with how the Tychosium simulator traces comet Halley’s approach in 1908 and 1909.;

Source of 1908-1909 drawing: The Popular Science Monthly - January 1910

The Tychosium simulator has Halley’s comet passing our planet at a close distance (0.15AU), right between the Earth and the Sun on 1910-05-20 (in Taurus), just as recorded in the historical astronomy annals.


We shall now see that what astronomers know as "The Great Daylight Comet" (a.k.a. “ The "Great January Comet of 1910") was none other than Halley's comet. Why is this significant for the Tychos model? Well, here is why: this comet (which was observed only for a brief period of time, i.e. during the 2nd half of January 1910) was located in a portion of our skies (around 19h of RA and -21 of DECL) which was totally incompatible with the 'official' path of Halley's comet. Thus, astronomers assumed that it could not possibly have been Halley's comet (which was expected to pass close to Earth in May 1910 - which it did) and that it must therefore have been a wholly different comet which just happened - by sheer coincidence - to pass in our solar neighborhood only a few months earlier. Here's an extract from Wikipedia:

"The Great January Comet of 1910, formally designated C/1910 A1 and often referred to as the Daylight Comet, was a comet which appeared in January 1910. It was already visible to the naked eye when it was first noticed, and many people independently "discovered" the comet. At its brightest, it outshone the planet Venus, and was possibly the brightest comet of the 20th century. The comet brightened rather suddenly, and was initially visible from the southern hemisphere only. A number of individuals claimed "discovery", but the comet is thought to have been first spotted by diamond miners in the Transvaal before dawn on January 12, 1910, by which time it was already a prominent naked-eye object of apparent magnitude −1." Great January Comet of 1910 – Wikipedia

Here's a more detailed account of some sightings of the "Great Daylight Comet"of 1910 - once more from the southern hemisphere:

"In 1910, the world awaited the return of the famous Comet Halley in May. However, the unexpected arrival of a bright comet in mid-January created much fear and awe. Deemed the Great Daylight Comet of 1910, it was bright enough to be seen during the day and at its peak, was brighter than Venus. It began to fade away in early February, followed a few months later by the arrival of the fainter, but still significant, Comet Halley. When Comet Halley returned in 1986, many of the older people around the world who recalled seeing it in 1910 had clearly described the Great Daylight Comet of 1910 and not Halley. In 1985 Jack Butler, a Jiwarli man from the Henry River in Western Australia, told of a “star with a tail in the east” he saw early in the year 1910 as a child. The comet caused fear among the elder men who “questioned what it was”. When the comet faded away, then men were confused and wondered where it had gone. According to Butler, the object he saw in 1910 was Comet Halley. However, the Great Daylight Comet of 1910 was prominent in the morning twilight, consistent with the “star with a tail in the east” visible early in the year. Therefore, it is probable that Butler was describing the Great Daylight Comet of 1910 rather than Comet Halley." Source: "Comets in Australian Aboriginal Astronomy" - by Duane W. Hamacher and Ray P. Norris

Here we have yet another account of the "Great Daylight Comet" (a.k.a. the "Great January Comet"):

Great January Comet of 1910 The first people to see this comet - then already at first magnitude - were workmen at the Transvaal Premier Diamond Mine in South Africa on Jan. 13, 1910. Two days later, three men at a railway station in nearby Kopjes casually watched the object for 20 minutes before sunrise, assuming that it was Halley's Comet. Later that morning, the editor of the local Johannesburg newspaper telephoned the Transvaal Observatory for a comment. The observatory's director, Robert Innes, must have initially thought this sighting was a mistake, since Halley's Comet was not in that part of the sky and nowhere near as conspicuous. Innes looked for the comet the following morning, but clouds thwarted his view. However, on the morning of Jan. 17, he and an assistant saw the comet, shining sedately on the horizon just above where the sun was about to rise. Later, at midday, Innes viewed it as a snowy-white object, brighter than Venus, several degrees from the sun. He sent out a telegram alerting the world to expect "Drake's Comet" - for so "Great Comet" sounded to the telegraph operator. It was visible during the daytime for a couple more days, then moved northward and away from the sun, becoming a stupendous object in the evening sky for the rest of January in the Northern Hemisphere. Ironically, many people in 1910 who thought they had seen Halley's Comet instead likely saw the Great January Comet that appeared about three months before Halley.” Source: “The 9 most brilliant Comets ever seen” –

So let us recap the various tidbits of information that we have regarding the "Great Daylight Comet":

  • It was observed only for a couple of weeks (during the 2nd part of January 1910) and was then seen fading away - never to return EVER AGAIN!.

  • It was quite low in our skies - and was therefore only visible from locations in the southern hemisphere such as South Africa and Australia.

  • It was seen to be gradually ascending in our skies - and to move 'PROGRADE' (i.e. in the same direction of our planets). This was probably the main reason why astronomers dismissed it as being Halley’s comet.

Well, well, well. So let's now see just where Halley's comet would have been in mid-January 1910 - according to the TYCHOSIUM simulator. Please remember that Halley's comet passed very close to Earth (at 0.15AU) on May 20, 1910 - at about 4h of RIGHT ASCENSION and +21°of DECLINATION - and that both the Tychosium and official ephemeris data agree about this):

As you can see, the Tychosium has Halley's comet passing in mid-January 1910 right around the celestial location described by the eye-witnesses of the "Great Daylight Comet" (approximately 19h of RA and -21°of DECL). To wit, Jack Butler in Australia would - for instance - have seen it "in the east, in the morning twilight". It then gradually rose up in the sky, "becoming a stupendous object in the evening sky for the rest of January in the Northern Hemisphere" (as was also reported). And in fact, the Tychosium shows Halley's comet ascending in our skies (between January and May 1910) from about -21°to +21° of declination.

In conclusion, the reason why astronomers failed to realize that the "Great Daylight Comet" and Halley's comet were one-and-the-same (even though they were separated by only a few months!) is due to their misunderstanding of the comet’s orbital motions - which of course is a corollary of their ill-founded belief in the heliocentric configuration of our solar system.

Now, the next passages of Halley’s comet happened in 1985-1986, but we’ve already covered that (with the “Above-So-Below” passages of 1985-1986). So let us now gradually step backwards in time and take a look at a number of other passages of Halley’s comet, starting from the year 1531 - and all the way back to ancient times.


As of the official tales, Halley’s comet would have passed close to Earth just once in the year 1531. However, we may find academic writings that talk about a spectacular passage of a comet in 1533 - as described by Wolfgang Kokott in this 1981 paper:

Once again, the Tychosium simulator can show that Halley’s comet did indeed make close approaches to Earth in 1531, 1532 and 1533:


Here’s what we can read in a book titled “Astronomical Enigmas” - by Prof. Mark Kidger:

"There was no bright comet in 1455, but Halley did notice that one was observed in 1456, which he suspected was his comet, although he did not calculate its orbit. Actually, besides the one in 1456, there were two bright comets in 1457 and another in 1458, which somewhat confused the issue." Source: “Astronomical Enigmas - by Mark Kidger

Once again, the Tychosium simulator can show that Halley’s comet did indeed make close approaches to Earth between 1455 and 1458:


The official tables of Halley’s comet tell us that it would have passed in 1378. However, it was reported in the catalogues of Alstédius and Lubienietski that “two comets had been observed in 1379 and 1380”. Source: “A History of Halley’s Comet”

Once again, the Tychosium simulator can show that Halley’s comet did indeed make close approaches to Earth between 1378 and 1380:


Well, this one is a true oddball - since modern tables now has Halley’s comet passing, inexplicably, in 1301! It is a veritable mystery that this most spectacular 1305 passage (as thoroughly described in scores of vintage literature) has now been "erased" in the official Halley roster - and replaced with the year 1301… And this, in spite of the fact that Edmond Halley himself used the well-documented 1305 passage date for his famed calculations of the comet's return! Moreover, there seem to exist NO dependable reports of the supposed "1301 Halley passage" in astronomy literature. Instead, what you will find are vague, popular conjectures that Italy's famous painter Giotto "may have personally witnessed the comet in 1301" - and that this would have inspired him to depict the comet (as the star of Betlehem) in one of his masterworks, the "Adoration of the Magi" (which was apparently completed in 1305…).

As it is, it turns out that two "coincidental comets" were actually observed in February 1304 and then in January 1305 - yet neither one was deemed to be Halley's comet!

"The dating of Giotto's "Anoration" is unfortunately not exact so while the bright comet of February 1304 seems to be the most probable we cannot rule out the comet that reached perihelion in January 1305" "Giotto's Comet - was it the Comet of 1304 and not Comet Halley?"

Once again, the Tychosium simulator can show that Halley’s comet did indeed make close approaches to Earth between 1304 and 1305. In fact, this was an instance of a “As Above So Below” passage. Much like in 1985-1986, it was the second passage (of 1305) which was visible from Earth, as the first one (of 1304) remained, for most of its passage, hidden in the Sun’s glare:

We have now covered all of comet Halley’s passages between 1305 and 1986 - and shown that the Tychosium is not only in excellent agreement with them all, but can also show that the numerous “Coincidental Comets” that were observed a few years before or after the ‘official’ passages of the famous comet were, in fact, Halley’s comet. We have also demonstrated that Halley’s comet does NOT have any sort of “chaotic” periodicity - but returns instead quite regularly every 75.66 years. Since we now know that this 75.66-year periodicity is perfectly stable and reliable, we shall go even further back in time and see if we can find ancient accounts of its passages that might agree with the Tychosium simulator.


Was Hipparchus’ new “star” of 134 B.C. Halley’s comet?

“In 134 B.C., Hipparchus noticed a star that he had never seen before in the constellation Scorpius. Unsure whether this was a new star or one that he simply hadn’t noticed, he began to compile the first star catalog, showing the positions of the stars in the sky.” Source: “The Ancient World”

Perhaps the best-known account surrounding Hipparchus (the greatest astronomer of antiquity) is this brief sighting of a new “star” that he had never seen before. Incidentally, this is reminiscent of the sighting of a supernova by Tycho Brahe, an event which, by all accounts, triggered his interest for astronomy. Now, most popular astronomy texts (e.g. Wikipedia) will tell you that what Hipparchus had observed in 134 B.C. also was a supernova. However, it has later been remarked that what Hipparchus saw (in the constellation Scorpius, in 134 BC) was more probably a comet:

“The third-century historian Justin, however, makes it clear that the new “star” Hipparchus saw was actually a comet, a fact that is confirmed by Chinese annals for that year.” Source: “Historical Supernovas” - by F. Richard Stephenson and David H. Clark

In fact, even the Chinese observed the 134 B.C. comet (which they named “the Standard of Tch’e-yeou”):

”There can, I think, be little doubt that the Standard of Tch’e-yeou, appearing in 134 B.C., was identical with the new star observed by Hipparchus and begotten in his age, as recorded by Pliny. The record of the observation follows a series of cometary observations, and this alone renders it probable that the new star at least resembled a comet.” Source: “The new star of Hipparchus, and the dates of the birth and accession of Mithridates” - by J.K. Fotheringham - 1918

The Chinese annals report a passage of a comet in June or July of 134BC. Yet, it seems that no available reports can be found in the astronomy literature regarding the exact month (of 134 B.C) in which Hipparchus himself witnessed that “new star” appearing in the Scorpius constellation. Hence, we may reasonably assume that Hipparchus’ “new star” was none other than Halley’s comet which, according to the TYCHOSIUM simulator, would have in fact transited in Scorpius by the end of 134 B.C. :

Was the famous MITHRADATES' 135 B.C. comet, HALLEY’s comet?

Scores of astronomical history books report that a giant comet appeared in the sky around 135BC at the birth of Mithradates, the "King of Kings" who opposed the Roman Empire.

135 B.C.: “Giant comet stretched across the heavens at the birth of Mithradates; entire sky 'on fire”

Here's an extract from a book titled "THE GREATEST COMETS IN HISTORY" - by David Seargent:

Source: “The Greatest Comets in History

So let's see:

  1. A most spectacular comet was seen in the sky (in Rome) around the year 135 B.C.

  2. The Chinese astronomers confirmed this 135 B.C. comet sighting - but they also reported seeing a great comet one year later, i.e. 134 B.C.! Yet, this other Chinese sighting is considered to be "almost certainly misdated"... Hmm.

  3. As justly stated in the above extract: "The chance of two such brilliant objects with unusually long tails appearing so close together in time [i.e. 135BC and 134BC] seems too remote to be accepted without very good supporting evidence".

We may then find this most interesting piece of information:

"John T. Ramsey, a historian who studies ancient observations of celestial events, recently reexamined these independent Chinese observations of the comets to determine the years of Mithradates’ birth and the beginning of his reign. Ancient Greek and Latin sources are inconsistent about the chronology of this period; the only secure date is the year of Mithradates’ death in 63 BC. Ramsey’s comparison of the Roman and Chinese astronomical details indicates that Mithradates was probably born in the spring of 134 BC (conceived in summer or autumn of 135) and was crowned king in about 119, when he was fourteen or fifteen. At least two Roman sources agree with the birthdate of 135/134." "A Savior Is Born in a Castle by the Sea

So, according to historian John T. Ramsey :

  1. Mithradates was conceived in the summer or autumn of 135 BC.
  2. Mithradates was born in the spring of 134 BC.
  3. At least two Roman sources agree with the birthdate of 135/134 BC.

Additionally, we also have this other tidbit of information :

"Chinese sources record the occurrence of a comet in 135 BC, the year of Mithridates Eupator’s birth. This comet appeared in the constellation of Pegasus." thesis by Victoria Monica Gyori

Let us now go to the Tychosium 3D simulator and see just where it places Halley's comet in the summer of 135 BC - and in the spring of 134 BC:

Please note that the official roster of Halley's comet contains no passage anywhere near the year 135 BC. Officially, the famous comet is believed to have passed Earth in 164 BC and 87 BC. Hence, no historians have ever realized or suggested that the "Great Mithradates Comet of 135 BC" was, in fact, Halley's comet.

It is important to know that there are numerous problems with the current official ('European') roster of Halley's ancient passages. Most of these have been, in fact, 'cherry-picked' from Chinese cometary annals (containing innumerable sightings of different comets over the ages); A.T.Fomenko and G.V.Nosovskiy have performed a thorough analysis and critique (linked below) as to how these were 'made to fit' the complex European computations of comet Halley's returns. Their paper is a must read in order to realize the problematic nature of the official roster - especially with regards to Halley's more ancient, pre-1305 passages.

"This leads us to a very important conclusion. Taking into account all the above considerations, we must admit that the “Chinese saw-tooth curve” as the presumed recurrence cycle function of Comet Halley is manifestly false. It cannot possibly reflect the real sightings or the real trajectory of the comet. Therefore, it is either of a random nature, or a forgery, all in all, either premeditated or unwilled and resulting from “the very best intentions”. EMPIRE - Chapter5, Chinese comets / Comet Halley - by A.T.Fomenko and G.V.Nosovskiy


Here follows a list of ancient cometary sightings (reported in the literature) which would seem to be in excellent agreement with the Tychos roster of Halley’s passages - although NONE of them are listed in the official, 'European' roster of Halley's returns.

362 B.C.: “China, A broom star comet appeared in the west in 362 BC. Ho, (15)” Source: Broom Star - China

In the TYCHOSIUM simulator, select the date -362-07-27 and activate Halley’s comet (in the “Planets” scroll-down menu). You will see that Halley’s comet would indeed have appeared in the west - as seen from the Earth.

209 B.C.: “Babylonian cuneiform tablet BM 45608 gives an account of a comet seen sometime within the 4th month of -209. A translation by Herman Hunger (1996) says it “appeared in the path of Ea in the region of Scorpius; it was surrounded by stars; its tail was toward the east.”

In the TYCHOSIUM, select the date -209-04-27 and activate Halley’s comet in the “Planets” scroll-down menu. Also, activate the Zodiac ring in the “Stars & helper objects” scroll-down menu. You will see that Halley’s comet would indeed have passed very close to Earth on April 27, 209 B.C. - and that it was indeed in Scorpius on that date.

245 AD: “Halley-type comet 12P/Pons-Brooks (hereafter 12P) has been linked to observations dating back to 1385 A.D. and possibly, to observations in 245 A.D. (Green 2020a; Nakano 2020), making it the comet with the second longest observational arc of all known comets, after only 1P/Halley.” Source: Recovery of Returning Halley-type Comet

In the TYCHOSIUM, select the date 245-05-03 and activate Halley’s comet (in the “Planets” scroll-down menu). You will see that Halley’s comet passed very close to Earth in May of the year 245 AD. We may thus surmise that the reported observation of a comet in 245 AD was, in fact, Halley’s comet (just as of the TYCHOS roster of Halley’s passages).

396 AD: “A record from year 396 AD reports a comet and 'prior to this, a large yellow star’. This apparition was in summer and ‘in winter… the large yellow star appeared again.’ That the star is reported yellow might be due to atmospheric condition and positive omens but the initial position and date of re-appearance matches planet Venus. Of course, they were able to identify Venus but this mantic text uses ‘a star’ in an astrological way where the nature of the object is not at all important.” Source: Applied and computational astronomy

In the TYCHOSIUM, select the date 369-06-01 and activate Halley’s comet (in the “Planets” scroll-down menu). You will see that Halley’s comet indeed transited between the Sun and Earth in the summer of 396 AD (in accordance with the Tychos roster of Halley’s passages). Next, select the date 396-12-30. You will see that Halley’s comet would indeed have been visible from the Earth in the winter of 396 AD.

323 & 399 & 550 ”In 323, a comet appeared in the sign of Virgo. According to the historians of the Lower Empire, another one appeared in 399, that is 76 years later. This is just the interval of the period attributed to Halley's comet.” Gustave De Pontécoulant – translated from French

In this other book, Pontécoulant (the top French expert of comet Halley’s at the time) also mentions a 550 AD passage of Halley's comet:

“A History of Halley’s Comet”- by Gustave de Pontécoulant

In the TYCHOSIUM, we may find Halley’s comet transiting in Virgo on 323-03-05, then on 399-03-05 and then again on 550-03-05. Note that, on all three occasions, Halley’s found itself in opposition to the Sun and would thus plausibly have been visible at night with the naked eye - in spite of its considerable distance from the Earth (more than 2AU). Consider also that Halley’s was much brighter back in those days:

Again, note that NONE of these three passages are to be found in the current, official roster (which has Halley's passing instead in 374, 451 and 530). We are therefore left with the awkward situation of having to choose for ourselves whichever version of Halley's history sounds more plausible. Needless to say, I submit that the TYCHOS roster of comet Halley is the 'hands-down winner', since it is consistent with a regular 75.66-year periodicity of the comet - and for all the other circumstances and 'coincidences' illustrated in this chapter. Let us now take a final look at yet another 'coincidental' double-occurrence.

774 & 775 - and THE "MYSTERIOUS" 774-775AD CARBON-14 EVENT

One can find on the internets a number of geophysical studies concerning a most exceptional spike of 14C (carbon 14) levels which appears to have occurred around the years 774 and 775 AD. In the last decade, there has been a vivid, ongoing debate among diverse scientists as to the cause of this peculiar (and still unexplained) historical phenomenon. The following excerpt from an article by Ethan Siegel is a good place to start - as it succintly summarizes this controversial issue :

"Every once in a while, science gives us a mystery that comes as a complete surprise. Typically, when we slice open a tree and examine its rings, we discover three different forms of carbon in each ring: carbon-12, carbon-13, and carbon-14. While the ratios of carbon-12 and carbon-13 don't appear to change with time, carbon-14 is a different story. Its abundance slowly decays with a half-life of a little over 5,000 years, with a typical variation of about 0.06% from year-to-year in the rings. But in 2012, a team of Japanese researchers were analyzing tree rings dating to the years 774/775, when they noticed an enormous surprise. Instead of the typical variations they were used to, they saw a spike that was 20 times larger than normal. After years of analysis, the unlikely culprit has finally been revealed: the Sun." “Carbon-14 Spiked Worldwide Over 1200 Years Ago, And the Sun Is To Blame” - by Ethan Siegel, Forbes magazine - April 2, 2020

"The Sun is to blame?" Well, in truth, there doesn't seem to be any general consensus about the Sun being the ‘culprit’. In fact, some authors have concluded that "large solar super-flares remain very unlikely as the cause for the 14C increase in AD 774/5". Other studies have instead suggested that a cometary event is to blame for this extraordinary 14C-spike in the years 774/775. I have selected a few extracts from three academic studies in order to illustrate what the whole controversy is all about.

Here is an extract from an extensive academic study published in 2012:

"COMET ENCOUNTERS AND CARBON 14". It is noted that the superflare from a large comet (comparable to C/Hale–Bopp) colliding with the sun could produce shock-accelerated GeV cosmic rays in the solar corona and/or solar wind, and possibly account for the C.E. 775 event. Several additional predictions of cometary encounters with the sun and other stars may be observable in the future. (...) "Here we consider whether (1) a giant solar flare or (2) the close approach of a large comet to the sun could have occurred in the year 775, when the levels of 14C rose by 1.2% within a year or so (Miyake et al. 2012)." "Comet Encounters and carbon 14" - by David Eichler and David Mordecai - The Astrophysical Journal Letters - Dec 20, 2012

Here are a few extracts from another geophysical study published in 2014 :

"EXCURSIONS IN THE 14C RECORD AT A.D. 774-775 IN TREE RINGS FROM RUSSIA AND AMERICA" ABSTRACT: Improved instrumentation has contributed to high-resolution (interannual) radiocarbon activity measurements, which have revealed sudden and anomalous activity shifts previously not observed at the common resolution of 5–10 years of most of the calibration scale. One such spike has been recently reported from tree rings from Japan and then again in Europe at A.D. 774–775, for which we report here our efforts to both replicate its existence and determine its spatial extent using tree rings from larch at high latitude (northern Siberia) and bristlecone pine from lower latitude (the White Mountains of California). Our results confirm an abrupt ~ 15‰ 14C activity increase from A.D. 774 to 776, the size and now the hemispheric extent of which suggest that an extraterrestrial influence on radiocarbon production is most likely responsible."

A COMETARY EVENT? In a recent paper, Liu et al. [2014] proposed that the 14C increase at A.D. 774–775 was caused by a cometary impact into the Earth's atmosphere. In their work, they observed a similar 15‰ excursion in corals about the same time.

CONCLUSIONS: We have confirmed the A.D. 774–775 event in the 14C record at two additional locations, in the western United States and Russia. The amplitude of the event is very similar to previously reported results from Japan, Germany, and New Zealand. This emphasizes the global nature of this phenomenon and according to existing models, only a production-rate change could cause this type of event. The fact that the 14C signal is observed in five very different locations with exactly the same amplitude is remarkable in itself. The exact cause of the event is unclear, although a number of mechanisms have been proposed, all of which require an extraterrestrial origin. It appears then that the A.D. 774–775 event is the first unambiguous case of extraterrestrial enhancement of atmospheric 14C in the tree-ring record." Geophysical Research letters, April 4, 2014

And here's an extract from yet another academic study (2014) of the same curious phenomenon which astrophysicists, dendochronologists and geophysicists all agree occurred in 774-775 A.D.:

"A SOLAR SUPER-FLARE AS CAUSE FOR THE 14C VARIATION IN AD 774/775? We present further considerations regarding the strong 14C variation in AD 774/5. For its cause, either a solar super-flare or a short gamma-ray burst were suggested. We show that all kinds of stellar or neutron star flares would be too weak for the observed energy input at Earth in AD 774/5." (...) "We conclude that large solar super-flares remain very unlikely as the cause for the 14C increase in AD 774/5." R. Neuhäuser, V. V. Hambaryan - Astronomical Notes - Nov 4, 2014

As you can see, there appears to be no firm scientific consensus as to EXACTLY WHAT caused this exceptional radiocarbon spike of 774/775. Was it a cometary event? Was it a solar super-flare? Was it a "short gamma-ray burst" as has also been theorized? In any case, all the above-linked studies appear to agree that it was some sort of extraterrestrial event - and they all concur in dating the ‘mysterious’ event to the years 774/775 A.D. (while some submit that it might have started in 773 and have extended into the year 776 A.D. - although in weaker form; in the TYCHOS, of course, Halley's comet can pass quite close to Earth on three successive years).

Now, let's see just what took place in those years - according to the Tychosium3D simulator. In my below screenshot, I show the path of Halley's comet between the years 774 and 776. On July 2, 774 the famous comet made a particularly close approach to Earth (only 0.13AU). On April 19, 775 it then made an exceptionally close passage ,"below" Earth, at only 0.08AU! (Note that two such successive super-close passages are a formidable rarity). Finally, in mid-March 776, Halley's comet was still only 1.1AU away from Earth:

Please note that, according to the modern / official astronomy tables, Halley's comet would have passed Earth in the year 760AD, i.e. about 15 years earlier. Hence, none of these academic studies have ever considered that this exceptional, abrupt spike of 14C levels in 774/775 might have been caused by Halley's comet.

The final section of this chapter will be concerned with two important (and much-debated) passages of Halley's comet, namely, those of 1152AD and 395AD. Are you ready for this, dear readers? If you have come this far, you will not want to miss this most fascinating part of comet Halley's history...


Whether history revisionism is your cup of tea or not, one must admit that prominent figures in that field - such as Anatoly Fomenko and Gleb Nosovskiy (and their precursor and 'inspirator', Nikolai Morozov) - are not exactly the sort of "crackpot amateur conspiracy theorists typing away in their mothers' basements". They all were / and are very eminent Russian intellectuals who spent many years reviewing a humongous amount of historical documentation (often involving astronomical data) comparing and cross-analyzing innumerable accounts of Greek, Roman, Babylonian, Russian tradition etc. Their conclusions thereof are, of course, famously controversial: in a nutshell (and to very roughly summarize), they submit that ancient history is not as ancient as we have been told - and that many events that supposedly took place in 'antiquity' (2000 years ago or so) are grossly misdated and actually occurred about 1000 years later, i.e. during the advent of the so-called "middle ages".

That's right, according to Fomenko and Nosovskiy, a lot of "manuscripted fakery", distortions and 'duplications' of historical narratives - including biblical / religious scriptures - has been going on in our relatively recent past. Now, let me clarify my position as to their many claims (which I admittedly haven't spent sufficient time looking into): I will suspend my judgment for now as to whether they are legit, dubious - or plain rubbish. However, even if the latter is the case (and be some kind of ploy to "muddy the waters" of history), I still wouldn't join the ranks of those academics who make a wholesale dismissal of their entire body of research - were it only because of its impressive breadth and scope. And yes, I'm fully aware that what follows may expose me to critique (for "cherry-picking" their work), but so be it.

As I currently take their work with a truckload of salt I am nonetheless - for instance - intrigued by their take on the birth of the fellow known as "Jesus Christ". According to Fomenko and Nosovskiy (again, roughly summarizing), the identity of the entity known as "Jesus" has been attached, in various historical manuscripts, to a number of prominent individuals (Kings, Emperors, Popes and whatnot). Short from listing here those various apochryphal / or duplicated "Jesuses" suggested by Fomenko and Nosovskiy, I will just mention the place and date that they propose that the 'original' Jesus was born. On the Wikipedia's "New Chronology" page we may find this short sentence that briefly and conveniently outlines the issue at hand:

"He [Fomenko] claims that the historical Jesus was born in Cape Fiolent, Crimea, on December 25, 1152 A.D." Source: "New Chronology (Fomenko)"

This made me jump in my chair! Why? Well, because - as we shall see - according to my TYCHOS model (and the Tychosium simulator - Halley's comet made a visit to our Solar System precisely in the year 1152 - and indeed passed right 'above' the Sun on December 25, 1152...

As it is, I had already found this old astronomy book which, in fact, mentions the passage of Halley's comet in the year 1152:

"In a communication made July, 1846, Laugier announces as a result of further investigations among Biot's extracts, the discovery of three earlier returns of this comet [Halley's], viz: A.D. 1152, perihelion passage, Sept. 23, (etc...)" Source: "American Journal of Science and Arts"

Here's where Halley's was located in our Solar System on December 25, 1152 - according to the Tychosium simulator:

Please note that Fomenko and Nosovskiy never mention that Halley's comet would have been transiting around our Solar System in the year 1152. Only the Tychosium simulator "says so"(along with Laugier and Biot, the two eminent French astronomers who notoriously specialized in the study of comet Halley).

So was Halley's comet (of December 25, 1152 AD) the legendary "Star of Betlehem"? Well, rest assured that I really don't have the pretention to assert that it was (nor that the real Jesus Christ was born in 1152). After all, if it passed just above and 'behind' the Sun, it should probably have been swamped in its glare. However, since some exceptionally bright comets (and their long tails) have been reported to be visible even in bright daylight, it is not beyond plausibility that Halley's tail - notoriously long and impressive in ancient times - was observed on December 25, 1152 (maybe at dusk?), as illustrated in my below screenshot from the Tychosium simulator.

In any case, you may agree that the fact that the Tychosium has Halley's passing just above the Sun - and at the Sun's same longitude (i.e. circa 18h40min of RA - on December 25, 1152) - is a rather fascinating 'coincidence'. Whoever witnessed such a spectacle in the year 1152 must have been aghast, thinking that "Jesus must have landed on Earth"...

Speaking about "fascinating coincidences' (in connection with the TYCHOS model), what follows is considerably more interesting - and should make your jaw drop on the floor...

MOROZOV'S DATING OF THE "APOCALYPSE" (John: Book of Revelations)

The most compelling historical revision submitted by the Russian astronomer Nikolai Morozov is to be found in his book "The Revelation in Storm and Thunder. History of the Apocalypses origin" (1907) . The book's German version is titled "The Revelation to John - An astronomic historical Investigation").

In his book Morozov makes the case that the Book of Revelation is describing the astronomical constellation over the island of Patmos on Sunday, September 30, 395. Morozov believed that "John the Revelator" was able to calculate the Saros eclipse cycle and was able to observe and predict celestial phenomena which would have occurred in the region of the skies of Patmos. In his book, the Russian astronomer determines with exacting precision that what "John the Revelator" refers to (in his colorful, metaphorical and only apparently "cryptic" description of celestial events) had to have occurred on September 30, 395 - just as a solar eclipse occurred.

For a concise overview of just how Morozov reached his conclusions, this Wikipedia page is a perfect place to start (and is all you may need to read in order to appreciate the Tychos-related 'Revelation' I am making here) : "The Revelation in Storm and Thunder"

Morozov was initially - and unsurprisingly - harshly criticized by various theologists and academics, but over time, astronomers have verified his claims and have had to conclude that they are, so-to-speak, rock-solid and virtually incontrovertible. As justly pointed out in the above-linked Wikipedia page:

"The description within the Book of Revelation matches exactly the Constellation for the Julian date 30-9-395". (...) "Sun, Moon and the 3 outer and 2 inner planets will produce 3.732.480 combinations within the 12 signs of the zodiac (125 × 5 × 3). Therefore, an accidental match is quite unlikely."

There can therefore be little doubt that Morozov's thesis was perfectly correct - and statistically undisprovable from an astronomical perspective. However, as lamented by one of his fiercest critics, there was still "something missing" with regards to the biblical text in the Book of Revelations"... In a paper titled "Pseudoscience and Revelation", N.T. Bobrovnikoff points out that the famous biblical text mentions another "200,000,000 horsemen .... and countless locusts that looked like horses". Bobrovnikoff then scoffingly asks whether there was, in addition to the solar eclipse (and the quite remarkable planetary alignments of that day - September 30, 395), "also a meteoric shower to boot ("and the stars of Heaven fell onto Earth")? In other words, Bobrovnikoff attacks Morozov for failing to mention these seemingly spectacular other celestial phenomena observed on that day.

Source: "Pseudoscience and Revelation" - by N.T. Bobrovnikoff

Now, you may ask, what could these other striking celestial objects have been? Well, as we go to the Tychosium simulator, we find that none other than comet Halley was hurtling through our skies on that very day! We may only imagine (in awe) what a formidable spectacle played out in our skies on September 30, 395 - what with a solar eclipse occurring just while Mars was almost precisely in opposition (and closest to Earth) - and while Mercury, Venus, Jupiter and Saturn were all roughly located in the same part of the sky where Halley's comet was "releasing its 200,000,000 horsemen"!!! Add to this the frightful fact (shown by the Tychosium) that Halley's, as it approached in July 395 would have emerged from right behind Mars - after nearly colliding with the red planet (which the ancients called the "God of War")! Earthly observers who witnessed this fiery cosmic spectacle (including a solar eclipse) must have thought that the "Apocalypse" was truly knocking at the doors!

In case you are wondering (and as you may readily verify for yourself): Yes - the celestial locations of ALL the planets (and our Moon) as depicted in the Tychosium simulator for that remote date - are in excellent agreement with Morozov's calculations - and with official planetariums / ephemerides. Only Halley's comet doesn't agree with the latter - since the assumed / official motions of our most famous comet are simply wrong.

As a last note to this review of Halley's passages of 395 AD and 1152 AD, please note that : 1152 - 395 = 757 (or almost precisely 10 X 75.66 years - which is comet Halley's proposed average and regular orbital period - as of the TYCHOS model.

In conclusion: I believe that I have now definitively demonstrated - beyond reasonable doubt - that Halley’s comet has a constant and regular period (just like all the other celestial bodies in our Solar System) of 75.66 years. The bizarre notions that its orbital period would fluctuate by +/-6 years (unlike any other known celestial bodies) together with its proposed, extremely elliptical orbit has to be among the most irrational 'axioms' of astronomy. How the Newtonian ‘universal law of gravitation’ may possibly justify the starkly diverse orbital paths of comets and asteroids is truly unfathomable. Furthermore, the TYCHOS model proves that the many "different" comets observed a couple of years before or after Halley’s comet regular transits can be identified as earlier / or later passages of comet Halley itself. Critics and opponents of the present research are welcome to try and make a case that each and everyone of these comets closely preceding or following Halley's passages (as methodically expounded in this chapter) are nothing but a long string of coincidental occurrences, i.e. a matter of mere happenstance; I wish them good luck with entertaining such an extraordinary argumentation. However, if there were such a thing as a "scientific Court of Law", I can see them being promptly laughed out of the room.

This concludes the 2nd Edition of my TYCHOS book (of 2022) which is the result of four further years of research since the release of my 1st Edition in 2018. I will hope and trust that its new contents and discoveries will stimulate a sound and earnest debate among those willing to reconsider their lifelong beliefs. I am fully aware that my findings will ruffle a great many feathers. However, having grown a pretty thick skin along the years, I will be enjoying every minute of what I expect to be a very long journey (riddled with the inevitable personal attacks and haughty dismissals) towards what, deep inside, I confidently expect will eventually lead to a logical, collective realization that we live in a binary system - much like all the star systems that surround us. The heliocentric Copernican model is now definitively broken and needs to be abandoned. As I like to say, the TYCHOS is here to stay - and it won't go away.