[Aztlan] Page 24 Dresden Codex

Thu Aug 28 09:52:40 CDT 2008

Floyd G. Lounsbury covered this in detail back in 1972 I believe. He 
proffered that since the Dresden Codex dates to the mid 13th century, this 
ca. 1934 CE heliacal rising was the primary Venus reference used by the 
Scribes. Indeed he used the 2d difference of this heliacal rising basis the 
'83-GMT to argue for a Classical Mayan correlation based on the '85-GMT 
correlate, and suggested that 2d was dropped from the Mayan calendar 
sometime shortly before the conquest. In other words an '85-GMT correlate 
before the conquest and an '83-GMT correlate after the conquest. The 
9.9.9.16.0 Venus base-date he deemed to be a 6 CR back calculation from this 
ca. 934 CE heliacal rising (i.e. no Venus orbital origin migration was 
considered), which explained the 21d offset of the ca. 623 CE heliacal 
rising.

Most Mayanists concur with Lounsbury, but his suggestion is highly unlikely, 
as research I am currently working on shows. The key to appreciating the 
Venus complex of the Dresden Codex, is realizing the 17d offset of the Venus 
base-date from an inferior conjunction midpoint was established by design. 
The foundations of this are built upon an expansion of John E. Teeple's 
self-adjusting Venus calendar, where adjustments are applied in only -4d 
increments, and a -17d divergence is calibrated using an 8 calendar round 
interval of 260 Venus years (i.e. 4 Venus leap days every 104 years). The 
expansion consists of a secondary self-adjusting Venus calendar with another 
adjustment of -4d every 4 Venus Rounds, thus establishing an accurate Venus 
divergence rate of -5.12 days every 104 years on average. This further 
establishes a -21 day Venus divergence for the 260 Venus year span. In other 
words the 260 Venus year span is expressive of two different divergence 
rates describing two self-adjusting Venus calendars, with divergences 
of -17d and -21d for the two Venus calendars, and adjustments in either case 
are always in only -4d increments. The one self-adjusting Venus calendar is 
enfolded within the other. This means the heliacal rising of ca. 623 CE was 
used as an actual astronomical observation to establish the Venus tables and 
not the ca. 934 CE heliacal rising, and the offset of the Venus base-date 
was established by design. The three Venus orbital calibration spans (the 
peculiar numbers) have an internal structure supportive of the 
self-adjusting Venus calendar, where two have an extra -4d span 
foreshortening, and one is missing -17d of span foreshortening, for the 
express purpose of establishing a cosmic rise terminus for the calibration 
spans.

The whole issue of the past has revolved around the 17d offset of the Venus 
base-date ca. 623 CE, and what to do about it. Lounsbury assumed the scribes 
were not adept in designing the Venus calendar, and thus scuttled the 
Dresden Codex as an element in the GMT correlation debates. A proper 
perspective in resolving this issue establishes the '83-GMT correlate as 
definitive over the '85-GMT correlate. The Venus base-date is simply NOT 
directly representative of a helical rise by design.

This is a difficult subject. You have to start with Lounsbury and Teeple to 
gain an in-depth understanding of the Venus complex of the Dresden Codex. My 
work briefly alluded to above has not yet been submitted for publishing.

Cheers Cliff

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <lahunik.62 at skynet.be>
To: "Aztlan" <aztlan at lists.famsi.org>; "D.M. Urquidi" 
<deamayaspin at yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 4:19 PM
Subject: [Aztlan] Page 24 Dresden Codex

> Page 24 Dresden Codex
>
> The second LC-date, 9..9.9.16.0, and the CR-date of 1 Ahaw 18 Kayab, in 
> the
> left lower part of page 24 were indeed very useful and reliable entry 
> dates
> for the Venus Table for pages 46-50 (or 24-29).
>
> The 3 sequences of multiplies at the bottom right, next to the base date,
> are in this way very peculiar, that they all are 8 years apart, or 8.2.0,
> with a CR of 18 Kayab.
>
> Here are 12 multiplies recorded with a constant difference between of 
> 8.2.0.
>
> If one adds 1 more multiply, or 13 multiplies of 8.2.0, or 5.5.8.0, or 2 
> CR,
> or 37960 days after 9.9.9.16.0, one becomes a following entry date, 1 Ahaw
> 18 Kayab, 9.14.15.6.0, Jan.13, 727AD.
>
> 5.5.8.0, or 13 multiplies later, is the next entry date, 1 Ahaw 18 Kayab,
> 10.0.0.14.0 or Dec 18, 830AD.
>
> 5.5.8.0 later, the next entry date, 1 Ahaw 18 Kayab, 10.5.6.4.0 or Nov.23,
> 934AD.
>
> 5.5.8.0 later, the next entry date, 1 Ahaw 18 Kayab, 10.10.11.12.0 or
> Oct.29, 1038AD.
>
> 5.5.8.0 later, the next entry date, 1 Ahaw 18 Kayab, 10.15.17.2.0 or 
> Oct.4,
> 1142AD.
>
> The most nearest date to a Heliacal Rise is the date of Nov.23, 934AD, or
> 10.5.6.4.0, 1 Ahaw 18 Kayab, with a difference of 2 days (H.R: Nov.21,
> 934AD). This date seems to be a crusial turning point. The more multiplies
> before this date, and the more after, the more the difference grows with 
> the
> Heliacal Risedates.
>
> It is very remarkable that the lower multiplies of page 24 are all 8 years
> apart.
>
> 13 multiplies is equal 2 CR, or aprox 105 years.
>
> It seems quite likely that the Maya must have knowledge of the cycle of 
> the
> Venuspassages.
>
> Venuspassages, when Venus moves in the orbit of the Sun, occur in unequal
> periods of 8 years, 121,5 years, 8 years and 105,5 years.
>
> Lahun Ik 62
>
> Baert Georges
>
> Flanders Fields
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Aztlan mailing list
> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/aztlan
> Click here to post a message Aztlan at lists.famsi.org
> Click to view Calendar of Events 
> http://research.famsi.org/events/events.php
>
>
> 