[Aztlan] Astronomical basis of Long-Count/2012

[Bertram Perkel]

Enough already. I suggest that this discussion has gone far enough  
might better be continued off site by the people still interested in  
flogging this dead horse. Over the last few years we have all too  
often suffered thru the "science" behind the 2012 issue and I, for  
one, am tired of it -- tho I agree that the Dec. 21, 2012  is an  
auspicious date since it will be my 82nd birthday. The years have  
shown that no arguments seem to shake the faith of the believers, we  
should at least be spared the time it takes to delete the posts. I  
would also suggest to "star heart" that "10-4 that, good Buddy" is a  
comment better suited to a truck -stop web site than this one.
Bertram Perkel
bperkel29 at comcast.net



On Jul 13, 2009, at 3:07 PM, Star Heart wrote:

> The recognizable "pattern" of one Jupiter/Saturn conjunction taking  
> place in
> successive katuns is "broken" after 10.3.19.2.15 (3.13.908 CE  
> Julian). The
> next katun 10.4.0.0.0 is without a conjunction! Please take note  
> that this
> is the time of the final documented historical use of the Long-Count  
> on Maya
> monuments!
>
> The 10.3.19.2.15 (GMT 283) conjuction is also significant in that it  
> took
> place close to the position of the vernal equinox of that time period,
> between the two fish of Pisces. It was a "return" to this position  
> and a
> completion of a 794+ years cycle. The previous Jupiter/Saturn  
> conjunction
> near the equinox position was circa 114 CE. If the first recorded  
> Long-Count
> was indeed circa 120, then this larger Jupiter/Saturn conjunction/ 
> equinox
> cycle "frames" the entire historical use of the Long-Count by the  
> Maya.
>
> The next 794+ year conjunction/equinox cycle, starting from 908 CE  
> concluded
> with the conjunction of 12.4.4.16.1 (5.21.1702 Gregorian). This was  
> a few
> years after the final defeat of the Itza/Maya by the Spanish, thus  
> "framing
> the time period from the end of their use of the Long-Count to the  
> end of
> their independent "world".
>
> The "break" in the one Jupiter/Saturn conjunction per katun pattern is
> calculated to occur only after 140-katun, which equates with 7 baktun.
> Notice how 20-baktun less 7 baktun = 13-BAKTUN!
>
> 10-4 that, good buddy.
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 12, 2009 at 1:28 PM, Star Heart  
> <earthlove2013 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The following is a list of computer assisted Jupiter-Saturn  
>> conjunctions in
>> Julian Calendar dates and Long-Count dates.
>> Does anyone see a pattern? (Triple conjunctions are listed as one  
>> with an
>> (*) after the Long-Count date).
>>
>>    03.17.452
>> 9.0.16.9.5*
>> 06.20.471
>> 9.1.16.0.18
>> 03.23.491
>> 9.2.16.1.14
>> 10.30.511
>> 9.3.17.0.0
>> 04.30.531
>> 9.4.16.14.2
>> 01.14.551
>> 9.5.16.14.1
>> 08.29.571
>> 9.6.17.12.14
>> 07.30.590
>> 9.7.16.16.4
>> 04.05.610
>> 9.8.16.15.2
>> 11.18.630
>> 9.9.17.14.5
>> 06.10.650
>> 9.10.17.11.9
>> 01.27.670
>> 9.11.17.10.0
>> 09.17.690
>> 9.12.18.8.17
>> 02.04.710
>> 9.13.18.2.18*
>> 04.20.729
>> 9.14.17.11.13
>> 12.06.749
>> 9.15.18.10.7
>> 07.23.769
>> 9.16.18.8.16
>> 02.14.789
>> 9.17.18.6.3
>> 10.05.809
>> 9.18.19.5.1
>> 06.04.829
>> 9.19.19.4.3
>> 05.15.848
>> 10.0.18.8.2
>>
>> The synodic cycle of Jupiter and Saturn averages out to a mean of  
>> 7254
>> days. This is clearly 54 days more than a katun (7200). On pp.  
>> 71-73 of the
>> Dresden Codex there is what has been called the 54-Series. This is
>> a compilation of multiples of 54 up until 702 (13 x 54). There  
>> continues
>> multiples of 702 until 14040 is reached (20 x 702 = 260 x 54). Higher
>> multiples of 14040 are suggested. The numbers 54, 702 and 14040 are
>> emphasized on these pages. These are the number of additional days  
>> of mean
>> Jupiter/Saturn synods for cycles of 1-katun, 13-katun and 13-baktun,
>> respectively. This indicates a verifiable astronomical basis for  
>> what the
>> Mayanists now call the "Long-Count" and specifically also the 13- 
>> baktun
>> cycle, such as the one anticipated to conclude on December 21/23,  
>> 2012. We
>> also have strong supportive evidence from an authentic Maya document.
>>
>> Anyone care to agree?
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>