1.
As seen from the Baghdad plains. Notice that the angle is only 23.6 and not the recorded 1° 30! It follows that the observations were not likely made from that vantage point:
2.
3.
As observed from Milagawan Mt.. Notice that the vertical measurement, 4° 10 25 fits, within the required precision ±15, the recorded 4° [±15!] But will such a measurement fit all the recorded events?... Notice also that using a SNB flat horizon the corresponding reading is not 4° 10 25, but 5° 28 23, which overshoots the recorded 4° [±15!] by 1° 13 23, or, after correction to a measurement from the lower edge of the moon, 5° 13 23, which overshoots the recorded 4° [±15!] by 0° 58 23. Using a flat SNB horizon, the measurement of 4° [±15] could not have been made until after 5:06:40, that is, five minutes after the fact, which seems too much !
4.
As observed from Milagawan Mt.. Notice that the measurement along the line of traveling towards the horizon, 5° 10 03 fits, overshoots the recorded 4° [±15] by 55 03, but also that a measurement within 4° [±15] would have been obtained if this measurement was made after 5:09:41 AM, that is, after more than 8 minutes after the first rays of the sun became visible, or, if, more correctly, measured from the front end of the moon, after 5:08:40, that is, after more than 7 minutes after the first rays of the sun became visible, then the recording would fit reality! Yet, 7 minutes later after the fact is not a very exact measurement, is it?! Thus, not quite satisfactory! To add to this problem, these measurements pertain to a SNB non flat horizon!
5.
As observed from Milagawan Mt. the July 7 observation, using a not flat SNB horizon, is only 6° 40 25, which is insufficient for meeting the recorded 7° 30 [±15.]
6.
As observed from Milagawan Mt. the July 7 observation, using a flat SNB horizon, I get a more suitable 7° 46 57, which, when measured from the lower edge of the moon, is corrected to 7° 31 57, which measurement is indeed very precisely fitting the recorded 7° 30 [±15!]
7.
As observed from Milagawan Mt. the July 7 observation, again using a non flat SNB horizon, I notice that a measurement along the ecliptic, shorter than the actual line of travel, is 8° 14 15, or, when as measured from the front of the moon, 7° 59 15, which is 14 15 more than the recorded 7° 30 [±15.] If this were to be the correct scenario, then this measurement, 7° 30 [±15,] was obtained, at the very least, between one and two minutes after the fact.
8.
Seems Ive uncovered a BUG in Starry Night Backyard v. 3.1.2 . If you look carefully at the Celestial Grid lines in the two screens below (#8 and #9,) while comparing the corresponding last two pictures above (#6 and #7,) youll notice that in spite of all the particulars being otherwise the same, the horizon is not consistent! This first one is set to Show detailed horizon with scenery
9.
While this one is set to Show flat horizon Well, that being so, I cannot very well pursue this study as I wish, that is, with a vision to figure out, if possible, where exactly the point of observation was located, that is, the observations recorded in VAT 4956 That is, until this issue is resolved! Ideally, Id like to be able to see the actual local horizon, for instance as portrayed in Google Earth. Perhaps that feature is already accessible in newer versions of Starry Night Backyard? Perhaps a joint project with Google would be feasible, similar to that provided by the NASA web site? (Cf. the interactive Google map at this link!)
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
