[Aztlan] No APOCALYPSE Maya in December 2012. Why?
GEOFF STRAY
gstray at btopenworld.com
Fri Jan 11 13:56:40 CST 2008
Mr Vollemaere's theory has been thoroughly addressed
by Mike Finley here:
http://members.shaw.ca/mjfinley/volem.html
>
> > From: Antoon Vollemaere <fa039055 at skynet.be>
> Subject: [Aztlan] No Apocalypse Maya in 2012
> Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 11:06:41 +0100
> To: AZTLAN <aztlan at lists.famsi.org>
>
> No APOCALYPSE Maya in December 2012. Why?
>
> The special aspects of the Maya correlation problem
> are for example :
> 1) What is the real signification of the date 4 AHAU
> 8 CUMHU?
> 2) The period BEFORE 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu.
> 3) The period AFTER 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu till the Spanish
> Conquista.
> 4) The end of the Maya calendar, after 5200 Tun
> cycles of 360 days.
>
> This message concerns only the first part. The zero
> point for our
> calendar is theoretically the birth of Jesus Christ.
> Every important
> ancient ethnical group had its starting point for
> their calendar. This
> was the case for the Egyptians, Chinese, Jews,
> Greek, Romans, Muslims,
> etc., as well as for the Maya. In their monument
> texts and in their
> pictorial manuscripts (codices) the Maya scribes
> indicated the number of
> days passed since a base day called 4 AHAU 8 CUMHU.
> The Maya astronomer
> took in account every single day, without losing a
> day. If we are able
> to place this famous day 4 Ahau 8 Cumhu in our
> Julian calendar system,
> it would be easy to pinpoint all the codices and
> monuments dates on our
> old Julian calendar scale and we will be able to
> write eventually a
> correct and honorable Mayan history. There are today
> at least 52
> different Maya calendar correlation propositions!
> The most striking fact
> is that there are more than 1,000 years between the
> first correlation
> (Bowditch 14.01. - 3632) and the last correlation
> proposition (Vaillant
> 2 259.04. - 2593) for the Maya base day 4 AHAU 8
> CUMHU. This means that
> Maya history can be moved back or forwards, with a
> maximum of 1000
> years, depending of your choice of correlation
> number! In other words,
> one can falsify Maya history with many many
> centuries. And that is what
> unfortunately and sadly has happened. Since more
> than 100 years (1905 to
> 2007), every date and calendar information of
> monuments of, for example,
> Palenque, Copán, Yaxchilan, Chichen-Itza, etc., or
> codices, is very
> wrongly calculated following the Goodman - Martinez
> - Thompson (GMT)
> correlations, with one of the following Julian Day
> Numbers (JDN). JDN
> 584,280 03.09. -3113 GOODMAN (1905), first
> proposition
> JDN 584,281 04.09. -3113 MARTINEZ (1918)
> JDN 584,283 06.09. -3113 THOMPSON 2 (1950)
> JDN 584,284 07.09. -3113 BEYER (1937)
> JDN 584,285 08.09. -3113 THOMPSON 1 (1935)
> JDN 584,286 09.09. -3113 LOUNSBURY (1978)
> (2008 - 1905 = 103 years.) Since long, many
> courageous students (more
> than 40) have tried to find a better and more
> correct correlation
> between the Maya calendar system and our European
> Julian (not
> Gregorian!) calendar. But the GMT correlations are
> very hard to die for
> so many human reasons. Nobody likes to correct their
> publications.
> Nobody seems to like the truth. Nobody is perfect,
> even mayanists;
> that’s very human.
>
> When you use one of the GMT correlations, without an
> in-depth checking -
> what almost every Mayanist seems to do, then you end
> the Maya calendar,
> after 13 BAKTUNS, or 5200 TUNS (cycles of 360 days),
> in december 2012.
> But... that is totally wrong. Why? Because everybody
> pays no attention
> to the fact that 4 AHAU 8 CUMHU is absolutely NOT
> the real zero point
> (0.0.0.0.0) of the Maya calendar, but it is a
> corrected solar position
> for a new count of the Maya days.
> Let me explain why.
>
> 4 AHAU 8 CUMHU was indeed certainly not a real zero
> day because it was
> the 349th day of a Maya solar year starting with the
> day 7 EB. The
> question was to know how many days/years there were
> from the first real
> zero day of the Maya calendar till the new corrected
> day 4 AHAU 8 CUMHU?
> As far as I can know, nobody has made before me an
> in-depth study of the
> date signification, of the real meaning of the day 4
> AHAU 8 CUMHU. By
> preparing my contribution for the International
> Congress of Americanists
> at Rome (in 1972, yes I’m now heading for the cape
> of 80), I tried to
> reconstruct the period BEFORE 4 AHAU 8 CUMHU. It was
> an exiting research
> without a computer, with a simple calculator. After
> a long busy
> Saturday’s work it was for me fantastic to find out
> that, after exactly
> 1000 years of 360 days (2 BAKTUN + 10 KATUN), plus
> the normal 239 solar
> correction days, the Maya astronomers reached the
> famous day 4 AHAU 8
> CUMHU.
>
> In other words, it means that, AFTER 4 AHAU 8 CUMHU,
> the Mayas needed
> only 10 BAKTUNS + 10 KATUN to reach the end of their
> amazing calendar. I
> can tell you already that the end of the Maya
> calendar fell already on
> 12 December 1546 (following the Vollemaere
> correlation), amazingly
> enough is this exactly a winter solstice.The Maya
> calendar is for me
> really a marvellous “Symphony of Time”! What were
> the consequences of
> this misleading choice of the GMT correlations?
> First of all, they were
> not based on astronomical facts but on incorrect
> Mayan/European date
> relations. The truth is that only astronomy can
> solved the Maya
> correlation problem. This is what we already did. We
> solved the Maya
> correlation problem in 1984 (see our bibliography on
> website America
> Antiqua III). We have on pages 51 - 58 of Codex
> Dresdensis a long
> sequence of a start day called 12 LAMAT 1 MUAN,
> 1400873 days after 4
> AHAU 8 CUMHU, followed by 69 columns of warnings
> (windows) for a very
> serious possibility of a coming eclipse. If one use,
> for example the
> Thompson correlation for this table, then we see
> clearly that his
> correlation is very wrong, because he warned only
> for 7 of the 14 solar
> eclipses correctly for a period of 11960 days (about
> 33 years). This is
> only 50 procent. Therefore alone must the GMT
> correlations be rejected.
> But there are so many other astronomical (eclipses)
> and ethnical reasons
> (Aztecan Mexican presence in Maya region, etc) for
> rejection, to long to
> explain now in one E-mail. Our correlation solution
> is 100 procent
> correct. You can find details in my 27 special
> correlation publications/
> 34 books and monographs, plus almost 200
> contributions
> http://users.skynet.be/fa039055/voll3kat.htm
> and also very briefly on my website AMERICA ANTIQUA
> III
> http://users.skynet.be/fa039055
> http://users.skynet.be/fa039055/corrlkat.htm
> http://users.skynet.be/fa039055/indexkat.html
> http://users.skynet.be/fa039055/forgtgtm.htm
> http://users.skynet.be/fa039055/thtable3.htm
>
> I will gladly answer precise questions, individually
> or collectively,
> and if necessary point by point. I can enlarge my
> website at the end of
> the month and I’m preparing a series of Correlation
> .pdf files (ready on
> short term) and the publication of a compact
> synthesis of all my
> correlation publications : “Codex Dresdensis 51-58
> and TriTritos solves
> the Maya correlation problem”. Furthermore, I have
> the intention to come
> to the USA, to visit my two (American) sons in the
> first half of 2008,
> and to give PowerPoint conferences, open for a
> correct scientifical
> debate, about “NO MAYA APOCALYPSE IN 2012 !” in
> planetariums and
> universities. It is a great and honorful challenge
> to give a correct
>
=== message truncated ===>
_______________________________________________
> Aztlan mailing list
> Click here to send a message Aztlan at lists.famsi.org
> http://www.famsi.org/mailman/listinfo/aztlan
>
More information about the Aztlan
mailing list