It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


2011 vs 2012

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 02:00 PM
Firstly my apologies to the members who feel this one has already been done to death!

I did a search first, but couldn't find any really detailed threads discussing the differences of opinion of the 'end of the Mayan calander' gregorian date.

I recently came across Ian Lungolds videos - yes, 6 years late I know .. I'm always late to the party - which led me on to Calleman's site (

So far, I'm extremely impressed with the information.

I'm tempted to buy his book but frankly have so much other research on my plate at this time, I'd much rather hear a synopsis or two from ATS members who've already read it.

So Calleman/Lungold and several others believe and state that the Mayan elders themselves say that 'end date' is Oct 28 2011, not Dec 21 2012, or at least that is what I am understanding. Given the final cycle will be only 260 days, that makes quite a big difference IMO.

I would love to hear from others who have done the homework, perhaps marrying the two ideas or offering ideas to support either.

I'll be researching personally as we go, so will slowly get up to speed, but may be a little overly noob from the get go. Apologies upfront.

At some point I'll make an attempt to approach Calleman directly but would rather raise my level of understanding before doing so. Any help you guys can offer would be appreciated.

[edit on 29/4/09 by RogerT]

posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 02:17 PM
February 27, 2007

My vision/dream says he is wrong.

I see a black female that appears to be between the age of thirty and fifty. She is sitting as if she is having her picture taken. She faces the camera face on. She is not smiling. She wears no expression. You cannot discern if she is happy or sad, cold or warm, smug or loving. She is pleasant of features but in a plain and ordinary way. She is not beautiful. She wears no makeup. The only thing that really stands out is that she is wearing a yellow sweater with a high rounded collar and long sleeves. Her hands appear to be in her lap but you cannot see her hands. You cannot tell if she is wearing pants or a skirt. She is not compelling in any way. She is very nondescript yet in this alone, though contradictory, she is compelling. I have seen her often and nothing about her changes. She is not anyone I can ever remember seeing before and she does not remind me of anyone that I have seen in the media.

The other image that weighs heavy on my mind is the image of what appears to be a young boy between eight or twelve years of age. He looks as if he is the child of Chinese and American parents. His age is very hard to determine because he appears extremely intelligent of face. He has a very innocent and trusting smile that seems genuine and without pretense. He also appears to be having his picture taken but his smile does not look the way a child would smile when instructed to say "cheese" while having his picture taken. His smile though pleasant and warm does not appear over joyful but he does seem content. The strangest thing about him is that though he has the face of a child he appears to have the stature of an adult and he is wearing a diaper. Not a "Huggies" kind of diaper. The diaper appears more like the garment worn by Sumo wrestlers, yet does not give the impression of a garment. It appears to be a diaper. I have seen him a number of times but not as often as the first image.

There is an image of a man and a woman trying to kiss. You can only see their chins and there lips. The problem is that ever time their lips are about to touch one of the faces disappears. Sometimes it is the female face and sometimes it is the male face, but they are never able to complete the kiss.

I have seen dates. The one with the strongest presence is January 26 2011. It looks like the image you would see on a movie poster. The other image is the image of two men facing each other in silhouette. The word "NYMH 2004" in large letters is between them.
I have had other visions since then but I don’t know if you think that these mean anything?

posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 04:35 PM
Well thanks for actually replying and sharing that but I'm afraid I cannot understand how your visions bear any relevance to my questions in the OP or the Mayan Calendar date debate.

I do hope that someone who has read Calleman's book can contribute to the thread.

Since 2012 has become a major discussion topic on ATS I'd find it weird if no-one here has done any serious research on Lungold/Calleman and crew.

posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 05:55 PM
reply to post by RogerT

I am saying is date is off 11/28/2011 should be 01/26/2011.

posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 06:49 PM
Based on your personal vision?

OK, thanks.

I was kind of interested in input as to why different researchers are interpreting Mayan teachings so differently, rather than looking for individuals to throw their personal 'estimates' into the ring for a generic 'end-date'.

No offense meant, but I've not yet met anyone whose visions were anywhere near consistently accurate - and I've met plenty of individuals who vision regularly.

Perhaps you are the exception.


posted on Apr, 29 2009 @ 10:25 PM

Originally posted by RogerT
So Calleman/Lungold and several others believe and state that the Mayan elders themselves say that 'end date' is Oct 28 2011, not Dec 21 2012, or at least that is what I am understanding. Given the final cycle will be only 260 days, that makes quite a big difference IMO.

I don't know how to think now. Its really a big difference, more than a year. I finish today to see the 'Mayan Calendar Comes North' lecture. Good stuff.
And was sad when i discovery Ian Xel Lungold died on the November 16, 2005.
Thats why there is no recent lectures.

Once thing is certain, what we know as the truth today is ever changing, the more we search the more differences will get. Its a not stop quest.

Now i cant decide with dates is correct for the event of end of the Mayan calendar. I see more headaches coming..

[edit on 29-4-2009 by theSeeker84]

posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 03:25 AM
Yes, sad that Ian decided to leave at this amazing time.

Unfortunately, most of Ian's predictions turned out to be inaccurate, but this seems to be a common theme with predictions.

It is easy to assign suitable events to past predictions, but I've not yet met or heard of any individual that has consistently made successful predictions about specific events in the future.

I originally saw the 2003 lecture of Ian in Vernon. Last night I watched the Yukon version. Whilst initially impressed by the Vernon event, I've been left deflated and disappointed by the Yukon event.

posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 10:36 AM
About the predictions, in the lecture i saw, i comprehend how Ian did it.
He only tried to extrapolate the graphic to see the near future.
Was a good future btw, but what it missing here is the Illuminati alike agendas in the equation, witch is twisting the flow of time. They are manipulating the evolution steps of mankind.
Thats why we don't see free energy and teleportation now like Ian said.

posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 10:41 AM
Although i dont like Lungolds theory or his biologist friend,the book they wrote was jam packed full of errors etc I did like the philosophical aspect of it.As for 2011 or 2012 it doesn't matter in the end unless self induced by ourselves.

posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 11:00 AM
Solomons, you seem to have a handle on this. Can you illuminate how the 2 different dates came about from presumably the same set of Mayan artifacts, texts and current elder testimony?

Genuine Q.

For me it does make a difference, regarding the timing of some major events and decisions in my life. Not that I intend to base my life decisions on the calculations of any one man, but if a pattern is clearly there, it's worth working with it and not against it.


posted on Apr, 30 2009 @ 11:03 AM
reply to post by theSeeker84

OK, I can take that on board.

I got the feeling that Ian went way too far out on a limb and got overly excited by the possibilities. It's a common theme. Very hard to stay 'grounded' in 3D realities when you spend so much time elsewhere

Whenever a speaker or presenter or author states ANYTHING in absolute terms, I'm immediately suspicious that the ego has taken control

posted on May, 7 2009 @ 06:16 PM
hi all.

this reminds me of a book that came out after Carlos made it "ok" to write about Don Jaunian personal growth experiences with native healers and shamans, like of the SONGOMA[sp] book.
This paprerback that I found, in some nameless hippie book store, in the late 70s, in tallahassee or Ithaca, had it where a student of archeology visited mexico for his second summer to do research on Mayan
ruins and currant peoples. He came to find out that some Shaman had Chosen him to be his apprentice long before he arrived!
He found that the Elders of the villages were keeping the Old Records.
He was told that white man had made a small mistake in the Counts, not 2012 but sometime in 2011 was the true date of the Change in time, the "end"!


the book is long long gone, like many of these books, now. I might make a dig into, they now have books that I thought were long long gone!


posted on May, 11 2009 @ 01:17 AM
reply to post by freestonew

Thanks for the contribution.

I am still eagerly awaiting an ATS 2012 'expert' to come to the thread and shed some light on this confusion.

For the moment, it looks like there aren't any?!

posted on May, 25 2009 @ 08:46 PM
Hello there,

I am not sure what constitutes an ATF 2012 expert but will try to help out.

I run the UK 2012 site and am currently in a rather frustrating debate with Carl Calleman regarding his 2011 consciousness evolution theory.

Straight answers to questions are not his speciality and most often he side steps or tells you to go read his book. That or just ignores searching questions all together.

For the record the 2011 theory comes from no physical evidence or aural history of the Maya people. Apparently they (Ian/Carl) found a carved Maya stelae which led to the system Carl writes about. It crumbled away just after they found it and made a sketch (how unfortunate...).

In their system the nine stages of evolution begin 16.4 billion years ago, which does not correlate with our current understanding that the universe began around 13.7 billion years ago. Even allowing for some error on the part of NASA I think giving someone over 2.5 billion years leeway is rather over generous.

At the top end of the system the divisions of 20 & 13 breakdown as you end up with a final period of 237 days instead of the expected/desired 260 days that makes up a Tzolkin sacred count. Carl has jumped around this by sometimes suggesting it is 237 days sometimes that it is 260 he has not resolved this issue which means his day and night cycles may all be out of wack by 23 days (that is a more exceptable error margin I admit!).

The basis of the 2011 theory is that consciousness itself has been evolving and will complete its evolution 28/10/11. Personally I see no good explanation for how consciousness itself can evolve. I can see how through self development work realisation can increase or that techniques can modify perception...that is something different entirely. Carl won't answer that question, I suspect because he can't!

Consciousness is a part of what we might call fundamental reality, an energetic sub-quantum phenomena in eternal flux which is existent and non-existent, ever perfected. How does that correlate to a flow of evolution over billions of years I wonder?

The Maya elders do not support the 2011 end date whilst many do support the 2012 date. Recently Don Alejandro has commented on a date he feels is more important than 21-12-2012 (Carl tries to make that sound like the Maya agree with him) but that one is even later, 31-03-2013.

At the end of the day the 4-Ahau of 21-12-2012 is carved in stone by the ancient Maya. The 2011 date is a creation of two modern western men theorising and presenting no physical evidence and giving themselves a 2.5 billion year margin of error.

The choice is yours!!!

posted on May, 26 2009 @ 12:34 AM
reply to post by BruceF

Thanks Bruce, I really appreciate the explanation you have presented.

My understanding was that archeologists found the carved stone and took the rubbing, not Calleman/Lungold, so I guess I have been misled.

Lungold also speaks about spending a lot of time with Mayan elders who pressed him to get the word out about 2011.

I suppose both of the above could be verified if one had the time and inclination, but in a couple of years the point will be mute anyway

Side note: If there really is some 'divinely inspired' information on the 'beginning of time', carved into stone a few thousand years ago, I think I'd be more inclined to trust that than NASA, who can't seem to get even the current earth temperature measurements right

posted on May, 26 2009 @ 12:56 AM

Originally posted by BruceF
Consciousness is a part of what we might call fundamental reality, an energetic sub-quantum phenomena in eternal flux which is existent and non-existent, ever perfected. How does that correlate to a flow of evolution over billions of years I wonder?

Re-read your post several times and wished to comment on the above.

I can see where you are coming from regarding Calleman's explanation that consciousness is evolving - it does seem like a contradiction in terms (oxymoron I think that is called). Like you said, he probably doesn't know how to explain it himself, so has simply chosen some inappropriate labels.

However, I think you are in danger of the same thing with your own explanation of the big C. Are you certain that your definition of consciousness is accurate? If consciousness is part of fundamental reality, how could it NOT correlate with a flow of evolution?

I got the impression that Ian Lungold had touched on a 'truth' but couldn't communicate it without putting his own egoic thinking into the equation (hey, don't we all!). In his earlier talks, I personally felt the 'ding ding, this is real' element, which is what turned me on to it. In his later talks, when he had become sure of his own ideas and predictions (which as we now know turned out to be wildely inaccurate), I was rather turned off.

It seemed like he had somehow lost the jewel.

posted on May, 27 2009 @ 11:27 AM
Perhaps the 260 day difference is the beginning of the entrance to the equator of the galaxy and it's 'cosmic radiation'. It took me a while to find what people meant when they said "In 2012 we will align with the center of the milky way" because to me, that is two points, here, and there. Thus, always aligned. If they had said aligned with the equator, it would have made sense.

Apparently the equator of the galaxy is littered with debris and gamma radiation. One would imagine it would take a moderate period of time to cross through this 'purification ring' if you will. 260 days to reach the center, 260 more to get out. If we have survived it in the past, I will be surprised to see how we survive it in the future.

posted on May, 29 2009 @ 05:53 AM
What I thought was interesting about his predictions was the piece about ethics.

If we think about recent news events:

1. Josef Fritzl - caught after 24 years
There were a string of other similar cases in the following months

2. Banking and finance industry
People are realising its all a scam

3. Fat cat bosses, many have resigned

4. UK government have been caught abusing expenses and avoiding tax

5. Many old murder and serious crimes have now been solved using dna evidence after been re opened

So it seems we are in a time of ethics and people coming to justice.

posted on May, 29 2009 @ 10:56 AM
I just thought I would chime in about the 2011 date. The other day I was listening to the shortwave radio, and there is a preacher that I listened to for a few minutes. I don't know who this guy is, but he is on the air 24 hours a day. I guess it is mostly a rebroadcast. Any time of the day he can be found. He speaks in a slow monotone voice. If anyone knows who this guy is I would like to know.

Anyway, he gave a date of May 21, 2011 is when the rapture is going to occur. He did not give a reason as to why he chose this date other than he has been predicting this date for years.

Now, I don't buy into the rapture theory, but I thought it was interesting that he chose this date.

If anyone knows anything about this please speak up.

posted on May, 30 2009 @ 05:14 PM
Quote from Baba Vanga:

"2010 - The start of WWIII. The war will begin in November of 2010Will start as a normal war, then will include usage of nuclear and chemical weapons.

2011 - Due to the radioactive showers in Northern Hemisphere - no animals or plants will be left. Muslims will begin chemical war against Europeans who are still alive.""

That's what I read there, so it ain't looking good for Europeans, and after reading the webbots recent predictions us Americans might not even be involved we'll be licking our wounds.

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in