I read the article. While an interesting hypothesis, I was never clear on what he identifies star #12 (presumably "The Star of Bethlehem") as, or even IF he ever identifies it. At one point, it appears that he is identifying Regulus as Star#12, but as it is occulted by the moon, it would be disappearing rather than appearing, would it not? Furthermore, the final reveal shows Regulus NOT occulted by the moon, making that identification even more mystifying by showing star #12 in a different location from Regulus.
On the other hand, Regulus would seem to appear again at the end of the occultation, but it would still be in the same place within the constellation of Leo, rather than offset to the west as shown for the position of star #12. The moon travels about 13 degrees along the ecliptic every day, so an occultation and reappearance of Regulus in a single observation would not be impossible.
Thought provoking but confusing.
.
On the other hand, Regulus would seem to appear again at the end of the occultation, but it would still be in the same place within the constellation of Leo, rather than offset to the west as shown for the position of star #12. The moon travels about 13 degrees along the ecliptic every day, so an occultation and reappearance of Regulus in a single observation would not be impossible.
Thought provoking but confusing.
.