[Aztlan] 13 Baktun Date

[vgray (gotsky)]

Hi Sid

Sid Hollander wrote:

"So far I have not found the question of 1 or 2 days to be much of an 
intellectual problem worth the extended effort to argue one way or the 
other.  I have more interest examining the discussions of those
offering much different coefficients and their arguments."

Sid you give up to soon.

The Goodman/Martinez/Thompson (GMT) family of JDN correlation constants has 
been the subject of a raging debate ever since Goodman in 1905, and over 100 
years has been pulverized into oblivion without so much as a definitive 
resolution for either the  '85-GMT or '83-GMT correlates, but always the 
question has been about the 2d difference between the correlates, and 
certain long standing assumptions were rigidly adhered to throughout. The 
community is exhausted after 100 years, and it is in this regard that Sid 
considers this question of 1 or 2 days to be an intellectual problem not 
worth the extended effort to argue one way or the other, and looks for 
answers amongst the much different correlation coefficients and their 
arguments. Why would one tread amongst the ruins of the GMT debate when 
great scholars such as John Teeple, Eric Thompson, Floyd Lounsbury and Linda 
Schele to name but a few, had returned from the battlefield empty handed, or 
at the very least without satisfactorily resolving the debate? In the final 
analysis the '85-GMT proponents take refuge from this debate, and point to 
the efficacy of correlating Lunar Series dates, and dismiss out of hand the 
ethnographical evidence, for not to do so would place them right back into 
the fray of that debate. The '83-GMT proponents for their part also take 
refuge amongst the ethnographical evidence, and hide behind an anomalous New 
Moon, where 1 to 2 days before and after New Moon (last and first crescent 
moon) act as a proxy for the New Moon proper, blurring the correlation of 
Lunar Series dates sufficiently to raise the correlation to at least the 
level of mediocrity. Yet Linda Schele et al. in Texas Note 29 quite plainly 
showed that the '83-GMT is broken relative to Lunar Series dates, but the 
ethnographical evidence remains sufficiently strong to attract adherents to 
the '83-GMT camp. One must wonder how it is even possible that this debate 
could remain unresolved after so much spent effort, and answering this 
question must by all accounts lead to a resolution of the debate. Failure in 
this debate derives from holding onto cherished assumptions, and refusing to 
admit new elements into the debate, for clearly the old subject matter over 
100 years is by now exhausted too. A bold step is to act upon this question: 
"If the '83-GMT correlate cannot realistically be considered a serious 
contender in correlating Lunar Series dates, then what must be done to 
recapture ground for the '83-GMT camp." Answering this question resolves the 
debate, and a clue to the answer to this question is the realization that 
even the '85-GMT is not entirely free of anomalies, as regards Lunar Series 
dates. It resolves the debate, because the '83-GMT enjoys agreement with 
ethnographical evidence, and the total number of GMT anomalies is 
dramatically reduced almost to the point of totally extinguishing those 
anomalies. But the solution is not palatable.

Cutting a long story short as I mentioned in a previous post, the fix for 
the '83-GMT correlate is to use a "structured '83-GMT" correlate, exchanging 
the Full Moon for the New Moon as a lunar cycle base, and a 15 day lunar 
cycle base reorientation plus the 2 day difference between the two 
correlates, means Lunar dates are expressly stated as an event 17 days into 
the future basis the '83-GMT correlate. This means all Long Count dates are 
scripted with a fixed date scripting methodology, where an inscribed Long 
Count is now seen as representative of two event object dates - the Long 
Count itself and another offset date event 17d into the future for the Lunar 
Series and astronomical events generally. Now the '83-GMT correlate yields 
the identical moon age as the unstructured '85-GMT. Mayan dates can no 
longer be considered orthogonal but exhibit an inherent structure by design, 
and this raises the level of the '83-GMT to at least that enjoyed by the 
'85-GMT correlate for Lunar Series dates, as moon age readings relative to a 
future Full Moon are now consistent (although many of the Lunar Series 
anomalies of the '85-GMT also disappear under a structured '83-GMT). This 
frees the '83-GMT from any reliance on an anomalous New Moon, and a huge 
array of Mayan dates are indeed also struck where the offset event object of 
the Long Count refers to primary tropical station events. As unpalatable as 
this solution is, the technique works across the board, and virtually 
removes all outstanding GMT correlation anomalies. Indeed no competing 
correlation constant may claim as high a success rate as the structured 
'83-GMT correlate - ipso facto Mayan dates are structured and not simple 
date objects, and the time is nigh for overturning the competing correlation 
constants. Remapping the time-line using competing correlation constants, 
has achieved only a twisting of the GMT anomalies into anomalies of a 
different kind, for as much as these competing correlations enjoy success 
they are not free of anomalies.

Armed with a date structure that exhibits a dual date metaphor, the 
competing correlation constants may be properly addressed, for in the final 
analysis these alternatives only transposed those annoying GMT anomalies 
into more palatable anomalies of their own. If Mayan dates are structured 
then why not calendric structures elsewhere? By expanding John Teeple's 
self-adjusting Venus calendar, and revealing the underlying structure built 
into the 33,280d and 68,900d Venus calibration spans found on page F24 of 
the Dresden Codex, an explanation for the two anomalies of the Bohm JDN 
622261 correlation emerges. Bohm fails to correlate the 185,120d and 
151,840d Venus calibration spans, and explaining why this so on the basis of 
mere remapping of GMT anomalies must overturn this correlate. Two offset 
date event objects associated with any Long Count date that are separated by 
17d, leads to the realization that the 17d offsets of the Venus base-date 
and the eclipse table base-date must be orchestrated by design, and indeed 
therefore not anomalies as previously considered. The Vollemaere correlation 
using 774079 & 774080 JDN correlation constants is shown to be merely a 
contrived reflection of Bohm, with an additional lunar anomaly of its own, 
and again this may be explained in terms of mere remapping of GMT anomalies, 
and hence Vollemaere must also fall. The Frederick Martin JDN 563334, 
Wells-Fuls JDN 660208 and Verbelen JDN 739601 correlation constants must 
also fall for the same reasons, and it is becoming increasingly clear that 
the 17d offsets of the Venus base-date and Eclipse table base-date, are 
merely being remapped by these competing correlation alternatives (i.e. 
forced to yield a zero offset).

With proper understanding of the anomalies inherent in the competing 
correlation constants, as mere remapped reflections of GMT anomalies, then 
one is finally left with only the "structured" '83-GMT correlate - i.e. the 
'83-GMT applied in an atmosphere of structured Mayan dates, which is largely 
free of the pernicious anomalies of the GMT family generally. Quite an array 
of GMT anomalies are extinguished: a) Venus base-date offset, b) eclipse 
table base-date offset, c) Venus calibration span structure identified 
expanding on Teeple's self-adjusting Venus calendar, d) Lunar Series moon 
age readings, e) Lunar Series anomalies basis the '85-GMT resolved when 
remapped to an '83-GMT environ, and f) tropical station events now take on 
greater meaning. The structured '83-GMT is not anomaly free, but it is 
almost free of anomalies, which surpasses the correlation covariance of any 
other competing correlate.

The 2d question of the GMT correlation debates is only resolved, albeit with 
an unpalatable (or surprising) resultant, if the problem is restated as a 
17d question, and this definitively retires the '85-GMT. Analyzing the whole 
gamut of Mayan dates supports this construction. The only problem is that 
the Mayans failed to expressly define how they structured their dates using 
a dual date metaphor, and analysis of all the dates alone reveals this 
construction, which is what led to the controversy in the first place. Now I 
may use the '83-GMT without embarrassment, and when a proponent of the 
'85-GMT points to the efficacy of their Lunar Series dates, then I may 
retort with "Look at how few anomalies I enjoy using a structured '83-GMT 
correlate, with even fewer Lunar Series anomalies. And further tropical 
station dates take on greater meaning, and the structure of the Venus 
complex of the Dresden Codex now stands revealed." Did I mention eclipse 
dates under a structured '83-GMT is now also superior to an '85-GMT 
resultant, capturing an additional 10 lunar eclipses (while foregoing 7 
solar eclipses), so that the table is more definitely a lunar eclipse table 
and not a solar eclipse table!

Sid, the arguments of the competing correlation candidates do not adequately 
reveal the hidden anomalies associated with those alternative correlation 
constants, or at least these anomalies are not properly explained. But 
failure to correlate the 185,120d and 151,840d Venus calibration spans can 
no longer be tolerated, and while the '85-GMT cannot correlate these either, 
the 'structured '83-GMT yields wonderful success, and the Venus calendar is 
also better understood.

Cheers
Clifford Emeric

P.S. I will at some point in the near future submit a paper on this, for 
those who are wondering.