[Aztlan] No Apocalypse Maya in 2012

[vgray (gotsky)]

Marcos and others

Indeed basis the '83-GMT the Long Count started on the 9th Aug -3113 CE, not 
11th Aug -3113 CE as is typically erroneously reported, and this is then 4d 
prior to an Aug 13th Izapa vertical sun transit.

This is why I often use a corrected Gregorian calendar in my work where I 
adopt Sir William Herschel's suggestion of dropping a leap year every 4,000 
years (except I use 3,200 years instead). Use of such a corrected calendar 
is not ideal, but counting the actual number of elapsed days between any two 
given events is the real issue at stake here. In the Gregorian calendar the 
Izapa vertical sun transit occurred on Aug 15th, while in a corrected 
Gregorian calendar it appears properly on Aug 13th (ignoring for the moment 
the critical issue of calendar date jitter which is a calendric mismatch 
with the astronomy). Likewise in an uncorrected Gregorian calendar the L.C. 
is typically reported as starting on Aug 11th basis the '83-GMT, while in a 
corrected Gregorian calendar it must be reported as Aug 9th.

It is not a matter of mixing calendars but rather counting the actual number 
of solar days that have elapsed since the Izapa vertical sun transit 
of -3113 CE, and determining it's position relative to the start of the Long 
Count, and basis the '83-GMT this sets a 4d interval at the start of the 
L.C.

It is very significant that the period residual of the 13-baktun cycle is 
134d in terms of tropical years of 365.24220305 days, where a complete haab 
seasonal round of 365 leap days occurs in "exactly" 1507y or exactly 29 
calendar rounds. That 134d period residual is the interval from an Aug 13 
Izapa vertical sun transit and a December 21st winter solstice in any given 
solar year with a 4d offset. That is one of the primary keys in establishing 
how the Long Count was originally inaugurated.

When using the '85-GMT correlate that critical 134d parameter cannot be 
harnessed with any success. Resolving the remaining issues with the '83-GMT 
definitively overturns the '85-GMT. An answer is already before us.

It is my contention the Mayans (or possibly proto-Mayans) did harness the 
lunar cycle to establish that there is a Full Moon that coincides with the 
day of the Izapa vertical sun transit ca. -3113 CE, and that the L.C. start 
was expressly set to start 4d prior to that event based on the above 134d 
period residual parameter, thus establishing a winter solstice end date 
reference. How such an alignment could be orchestrated using a (7.5.0.0.0) 
Full Moon / winter solstice coincidence event ca. -255 CE may be 
demonstrated (with a 4d offset zone properly aligned). The oldest known L.C. 
date ever found is expressly set 220y from a (7.5.0.0.0) reference with 
a -17d offset that is also explained in Mayan calendric terms as an embedded 
date scripting methodology.

Is there evidence for such a possibility? Most definitely, but this is not 
necessarily conclusive proof for the '83-GMT, but other factors in 
conjunction not mentioned here make it quite likely.

We do possess the answer. Actually I am confidant the proof for the '83-GMT 
is already at hand and only needs to be properly presented in a broader 
context, especially in terms of Lunar dates. Using the embedded structures 
of the Venus complex of the Dresden Codex, I can already demonstrate that 
the Bohm correlation is decidedly false, and further that the Vollemaere 
correlation is deeply rooted in the Bohm correlation in a most subtle manner 
involving the 260 Venus year interval. And further the structures of the 
eclipse table may be harnessed in further support of this hypothesis, 
despite the apparent exactness of those correlation candidates in terms of 
lunar and eclipse dates. Those candidates relied on astronomy, and with 
astronmy coupled with calendric structure these correlates may be 
definitively overturned.

Cheers Cliff



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Marcos Villaseñor" <villas at anawak.com>
To: "vgray ((gotsky))" <vgray at gotsky.com>
Cc: "John Major Jenkins" <kahib at ix.netcom.com>; "AZTLAN" 
<aztlan at lists.famsi.org>
Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2008 10:03 PM
Subject: Re: [Aztlan] No Apocalypse Maya in 2012



On Jan 13, 2008, at 5:58 AM, vgray ((gotsky)) wrote:

> Dear Marcos and others
>
> It is a fallacy to believe an 85-GMT correlate places the Long  Count 
> beginning at Aug 13th -3113 CE, which also coincides with an  Aug 13th 
> Izapa vertical sun transit.
>
> The Gregorian calendar is in error by -1.5d over the course of 5125 
> years, and hence the actual vertical sun transit of 3114 BC  actually 
> occurs about 2d earlier on Aug 11th within the Gregorian  calendar. Leap 
> days days need to be dropped every 3,128y within the  Gregorian calendar 
> to keep it accurate which greatly increases  overall calendar jitter.

Marcos: Interesting, I had not approached the problem from this
perspective.  The Gregorian calendar indeed accumulates a difference
of one day in a little over 3,000 years, that is because the
Gregorian calendar is based on a tropic year of 356.2425 days. So
using the proleptic Gregorian calendar with a year value of 365.2425
days, the same solar sunset happens on 13th august today as in 3114
BCE. Of course, as you state, in tropic years of 365.2422 days this
calculation has an error of almost 2 days.

Let see:

A calculation of the LC IRT tropic years of 365.2422 days (1,872,000
÷ 365.2422 = 5125.366126 ) means that the end of the LC occurs 5125
years and 134 (133.7) days after its begining date.

A calculation of the LC IRT Gregorian years of 365.2425 days
(1,872,000 ÷ 355.2425 = 5125.361917 ) means that the end of the LC
occurs 5125 years and 132 (132.2) days after its begining date.

So we can say the following:

In terms of actual tropic years; If the LC starts on an 11th of
August it ends on a date 134 days later: on 23 December.

In terms of actual tropic years; If the LC starts on a 13th of August
it ends on a date 134 days later: on 25 December.

In terms of Gregorian years; If the LC starts on an 11th of August it
ends on a date 132 days later: on 21 December.

In terms of Gregorian years; If the LC starts on an 13th of August it
ends on a date 133 days later: on 23 December.

But what we cannot do is mix calendars lest we be misled in our
calculations. This issue is thus calendrical and not astronomical.

>
> In fact basis the 83-GMT using a sunset beginning for the Long  Count, the 
> Izapa vertical sun transit occurs 3.5d past the  beginning of the Long 
> Count, and basis the 85-GMT 1.5d past the  beginning of the Long Count. Or 
> rounding these some 4d or 2d  respectively for the two GMT correlates.

Marcos: I believe you are mixing calendar calculations. You cannot do
one calculation using actual tropic years and the other one using
Gregorian years because you skew your results. Unless you are
prepared to say that the LC started on 9 August 3114 BCE.
>
> There is nothing significant about an Aug 13th beginning within the 
> Gregorian calendar during the year 3114 BC as it applies to either  GMT 
> correlate and the Izapa vertical sun transit.

Marcos: Or we haven't discovered anything significant yet.
>
> Much more significant is that basis the 83-GMT a Full Moon and  Izapa 
> vertical sun transit coincidence occurs 4d past the start of  the Long 
> Count, and using lunar heuristics this is quite easily  discoverable prior 
> to the inauguration of the Long Count using the  oldest known Long Count 
> date ca. -35 CE at Chiapas de Corzo. For  example a 220y interval exhibits 
> near Full Moon & winter solstice  coincidences at both extremities of the 
> interval. There are many  other such intervals. During -35 CE a near Full 
> Moon and winter  solstice coincidence occurred which may be used as an 
> anchor within  the Long Count to other such occurrences, including the 
> Full Moon /  Izapa vertical sun transit anchor at [0.0.0.0.4].


> Using the technique of relative comparisons between correlates and 
> comparing these to calendric structures, it is possible to  eliminate many 
> of the competing correlation constants. For example  Bohm fails to 
> accommodate the four Venus Round interval correctly  and hence cannot 
> properly correlate the Venus Complex of the  Dresden Codex. There is 
> structure embedded there that causes the  Bohm to fail. The Vollemaere 
> correlation can be shown to fail also  when calendric structures are 
> introduced into the analysis. We are  down to only a few correlation 
> candidates and increasingly the 83- GMT is gaining ground over the '85-GMT 
> even in the realm of lunar  dates.
>
> I am increasingly confidant the '83-GMT will rule supreme and we  are 
> getting close to proving it too.

Marcos: I actually have to say that either GMT correlation or the
Bohm correlation do not affect my research, as my focus is on the
precession calculation as it is framed within venus cycles (3206
sinodic cycles with an error equivalent to Venus' orbital plane
torquing motion). On a personal level I would prefer the 83-GMT
correlation also. But as you state here correctly, you are confident,
(thus not certain) and only the work of all of us will eventually
lead to a correct answer,  we must accept that we do not yet posses
that answer and not make categorical statements to the opposite.

Best regards,

Marcos


>
>