Could the Maya Long Count Calendar Be Technically Off a Year??? , page 1

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 5 times

Topic started on 16-2-2010 @ 09:51 PM by Stargate2012

Well I posted this below on the GLP site, but wanted to post it here for more thoughts. It is a technicality with the Mayan Long Count Calendar. I am almost 100% sure that the true end of completion date of the Mayan Long Count is NOT Dec. 21st, 2012. Here is why:

Something to ponder.

The Mayan Long Count begun on 0 day or 0.0.0.0.0 which was August 11th, -3113 (astronomical counting). You can see that in the Maya Long Count to Gregorian conversion link below.

Now some feel the Long Count had not only a 0 day but also a zero year. Between August 11th, -3113 to August 5th, -3112 was that zero year. from 0.0.0.0.0 to 0.0.1.0.0. August 6th, -3112 would be 0.0.1.0.1

www.diagnosis2012.co.uk...

Now perhaps the calendar begun counting at that 1 Year. Not at 0, but at Year 1. Just like how the Gregorian calendar begins at 1 AD. You logically don't count starting at 0, but at 1. So it can be consider this way....

The 3rd millennium begun on Jan. 1st, 2000 if only the Gregorian calendar started at 0, but it doesn't, it begins at 1 AD, which means technically the start of the 3rd millennium began on Jan. 1st, 2001.

Could this line of thinking than apply to the Dec. 21st, 2012 date? This essentially could be like thinking Jan. 1st, 2000 was the start of the new millennium when technically it was Jan. 1st, 2001 because the calendar started at 1.

This means if there was a 0 year in the Long Count, which looks like that was the case, and if the calendar didn't begin counting at 0 but instead of Year 1, then the Maya Long Count calendar technically ends a year later or 1 Tun later (360 days) from Dec. 21st, 2012. That date is Dec. 16th, 2013, which falls on 13 Ahau.

Re: Could the Maya Long Count Calendar Be Technically Off a Year??? Quote

More thoughts on this:

I believe that Dec. 21st, 2012 is the correct long count end date, ONLY IF you are counting from zero, but I think this wasn't the case or purpose to start at 0 in the calendar. The 0 was a placeholder. Just void, empty space, just included as a digit but not a counting number.

Thus, the Mayan Long Count year 1 starts at August 5th, -3112 (astro). which is 0.0.1.0.0 (or Year 1). It is day sign 13 Ahau as well. The next day, August 6th, -3112 is 0.0.1.0.1 which is 1 Imix. And 1 Imix means this:

"The Classic Maya believed that an earth monster or primordial Crocodile floated in the ocean of
the Underworld. He carried the Earth on his back, nourishing and protecting all life. Thus, Crocodile supplies humanity with the underlying primal feeling of our connection to nature and Mother Earth.

The glyph itself represents a Waterlily, a symbol of beauty, abundance and growth, and the
possibility of ascension out of the primordial soup of creation.

Out of the void, a spark of fire falls into the primordial ocean of possibilities and creation spirals into life.

With 1 Imix we are starting a new Tzolkin round of 260 days which ends on 13 Ahau. 1 Imix is a
logical place to begin counting the days. The number 1 and Imix both symbolize beginning.
According to Kenneth Johnson in Jaguar Wisdom, “this is an arbitrary point of origin. The rhythm
of the Sacred Calendar is circular; many contemporary Calendar shamans insist that it has neither beginning nor end. Nevertheless, we will follow tradition and use 1 Crocodile as a convenient ‘beginning’.”

www.mayanmajix.com...

So there you see above, "out of void" and symbolizes beginning. So I am thinking that the true calendar starts counting at 1 just like 1 AD in our Gregorian Calendar. This means technically then the true end of completion of the Mayan Long Count is a year later from Dec. 21st, 2012, which is Dec. 16th, 2013 or 1 tun (360 days). Dec. 16th, 2013 is 13 Ahau, and the next day is 1 Imix on Dec. 17th, 2013.

Here is an article discussing whether we count starting at 0 or starting at 1:

kilby.stanford.edu...

You might have heard of Carl Calleman? His Maya Long Count 'end date' is 10-28-2011 because that day falls on 13 Ahau. That was pretty much his main reason for choosing that date because it falls on 13 Ahau.

This is what he said:

Why the Creation Cycles do not end
December 21 2012, but October 28, 2011

www.calleman.com...

"Another equally compelling reason why December 21, 2012 cannot be the true date of completion of creation is that this day is 4 Ahau in the tzolkin count. Since the Long Count consists of exactly 7200 tzolkin rounds then the true end of creation must fall on a day that is 13 Ahau in the tzolkin count so that the tzolkin rounds even out. If we want to find out what is the real date of ending of the creation cycles we must therefore look for a day around the year 2012, which is 13 Ahau in the tzolkin count."

Well guess what? Dec. 16th, 2013 is 13 Ahau as well!

reply posted on 16-2-2010 @ 09:59 PM by thehoneycomb

You forgot to mention that the mayan calendar year was based on 13 months and not 12 so to answer your question with another question have you ever noticed that winters seem to come later every year? Have you noticed that the hurricanes season has been gradually moving west over the last 20 years?

reply posted on 16-2-2010 @ 10:09 PM by Stargate2012

yeah, I heard something about that, the 13 months.

So are we being duped into believing that the Mayan calendar ends on Dec. 21st, 2012 when it technically ends 1 year later on Dec. 16th, 2013? Just like how we were duped into thinking the millennium was on Jan. 1st, 2000 when technically it was Jan. 1st, 2001?

reply posted on 16-2-2010 @ 10:16 PM by m0r1arty

Duped?

Wowsers!!

Who duped us and for what reason?

-m0r

reply posted on 16-2-2010 @ 10:20 PM by Stargate2012

Duped as in the belief that the majority of the people think the Mayan Long Count calendar ends on 12/21/12 (of course there is the Calleman 10/28/11 group) but just like myself I thought the start of the millennium was Jan. 1st, 2000 but technically it wasn't because the Gregorian calendar started at 1 not 0.

reply posted on 16-2-2010 @ 11:41 PM by AshOnMyTomatoes

So is this a preparation for when nothing happens in 2012? "Ohhhh, they really meant 2013. Well, I guess we'll have to wait a year."

reply posted on 16-2-2010 @ 11:59 PM by Stargate2012

Originally posted by AshOnMyTomatoes
So is this a preparation for when nothing happens in 2012? "Ohhhh, they really meant 2013. Well, I guess we'll have to wait a year."

I think something major happening in 2012 or on 12-21-12 is very immaturish. It will likely be a 2-3 year process of something happening. A comet strike, solar flares, Moon becoming red and Sun becoming sackcloth, etc. etc. Hopefully it doesn't happen. Not sure many people want that to happen now. Some will be ready for it, others, many others will not be.

I always look at what Nostradamus and what Revelation says. And both of them allude to a comet/large bolide strike on Earth creating all out hell. The 1260 days of Great Tribulation.

The thing I am very concerned about and actually somewhat worried now, is something major happening in July 2010. Not only is there a major fall off the cliff drop of novelty during that time with the TimeWave Zero graph, but in Nostradamus Quatrains it alludes to a comet striking Earth between a June 21st to July 28th timeframe. Somewhere near Cancer or in Leo. I also believe too interpreting Revelation that the comet strikes during that time too, around July. So it makes me really ponder now then that if the Mayan Long Count technically ends Dec. 16th, 2013, that would mean the 1260 Great Tribulation would begin in July 2010.

[edit on 17-2-2010 by Stargate2012]

reply posted on 17-2-2010 @ 12:23 AM by thehoneycomb

reply to post by Stargate2012

I just wanted to test your knowledge. Though the mayan calendar and Gregorian calendar are not compatible the date Decmber 21, 2012 is still the date recognized by NASA among others and what not. It is dervived from the Mayan calendar but it is not derived from the gregorian calendar, the date itself is the mayan end date according to our current system.

Our system however does not make much sense. The gregorian calendar that is. The 13 month calendar was geometrically perfect in most every way and it accounted for leap years in a way that no 12 month calendar could.

The 12 month calendar itself was originated by Julius Caesar in 46 BC.

Due to this change there are in fact days added every year, because our current system is out of sync with the solar system. You did mention the 360 day calendar which would make perfect sense because a complete circle is 360º.

[edit on 17-2-2010 by thehoneycomb]

reply posted on 17-2-2010 @ 12:47 AM by Stargate2012

A year for the Mayan Long Count was 1 Tun or 360 days.

The beginning of the Long Count August 11th, -3113 was found on a stella of the Mayans. The GMT correlation using the Julian Day number puts it at that, as well as the 13 baktun concluding on Dec. 21st, 2012.

What the GMT correlation didn't do was count starting at Year 1 but instead at 0. I believe that was the error. There is not only a 0 day with the Long Count but a zero year between August 11th, -3113 to August 5th, -3112. That day is 0.0.1.0.0 or essentially saying Year 1. The next day August 6th, -3112 is 0.0.1.0.1 kind of like thinking January 1st, 2001.

There are no stellas that say the end date is Dec. 21st, 2012. That date was picked in the GMT correlation to concluded on the 13 baktun which is that date starting at 0, August 11th, -3113.

The error thus is it is counting the numbers from 0, which shouldn't be the case. It should be starting at Year 1, just like how we do it in the Gregorian calendar 1 AD and any other way of counting numbers as described in that Stanford link above discussing whether we should count starting at 0 or at 1. The 0 in the Mayan Long Count was void, null, empty space, and should not be included as a counting number but only as a place holder.

reply posted on 17-2-2010 @ 12:54 AM by thehoneycomb

reply to post by Stargate2012

Good job. You should also take into account that anything predating 1 bc is historically incorrect. The Holy Roman Empire made a significant change in about 27 AD which would put the year 26 BC around the year 1 AD and if you look to dates after 26 BC very little happened. Thats because there was a regime change and they waited over a hundred years or more but everything before the rise of the Holy Roman Empire was later refered to as AD and all dates predating it were BC.

reply posted on 17-2-2010 @ 12:59 AM by Stargate2012

Thanks, and thanks for your informative reply. If you are familiar with Carl Calleman and his 10-28-11 end date, he created that end date, because he felt that the Tzolkin rounds should even out and end on 13 Ahau. Well I think he is correct here, but he just picked the wrong technical end date here because 13 Ahau again lands on Dec. 16th, 2013. Exactly 1 tun from Dec. 21st, 2012. It makes more calendric sense for that being the correct 13 Ahau end date.

reply posted on 17-2-2010 @ 01:03 AM by thehoneycomb

reply to post by Stargate2012

Also instead of the date January 1, 2001 I am curious why September 1, 2001 has not been taken into account being that it has very much to do with the cycle of Venus.

reply posted on 17-2-2010 @ 01:06 AM by thehoneycomb

reply to post by Stargate2012

I think he may be both correct and incorrect. He is incorrect by not acknowledging the dates the scientific community has acknowledged, but also correct for pointing out some big time discreptancies with our dates according to the mayan calendar. I don't think any of the dates you posted are terribly innacurate, but I do think that there are other factors to take into consideration.

reply posted on 17-2-2010 @ 01:10 AM by Stargate2012

Originally posted by thehoneycomb
reply to post by Stargate2012

I think he may be both correct and incorrect. He is incorrect by not acknowledging the dates the scientific community has acknowledged, but also correct for pointing out some big time discreptancies with our dates according to the mayan calendar. I don't think any of the dates you posted are terribly innacurate, but I do think that there are other factors to take into consideration.

That is how I feel. He is both correct and incorrect, just as well with John Major Jenkins and the general GMT correlation. The dates I posted are accurate. It is just the simple thought of whether you start counting at 0 or 1. GMT correlation counts at 0, and that is the main error. No disputing though Dec. 21st, 2012 is 13.0.0.0.0 4 Ahau which it is, but I look it along the lines of thinking that is like Jan. 1st, 2000, when everyone thought that was when the new millennium started, but Jan. 1st, 2001 technically was. Just like thinking that is likely the case of the true end of completion date being Dec. 16th, 2013.

reply posted on 17-2-2010 @ 01:17 AM by thehoneycomb

reply to post by Stargate2012

Well if you are open for some speculations lets go.

The winter solstice is most commonly known as December 21.

9/11/2001 was exactly 3 months before that in 2001 also marked a transitional phase of Venus.

Sun spot cycles last 22 years, every 11 years the sun shifts its magnetic poles.

December 21, 2012 is said to be a solar maximum which woul put the year 2001 also at a solar maximum and the years 2004, 2005, 2006 at solar minimum.

Perhaps our dates are flawed because we have an innacurate way of tracking them.

reply posted on 17-2-2010 @ 01:29 AM by thehoneycomb

Notice that we had some pretty major hurricanes in the years 2005-2008 and also a tsunami in 2004 but do you remember 1992 at all?

In 1992 the hurricanes were forming on the east side of Florida in the Carribean near the Bermuda Traingle.

Over the last twenty years or so the syste has migrated westward and during the 2004-2008 seasons most were forming in the gulf but towards the end of 2008 and 2009 we are now seeing them form in the pacific which means the system itself has moved over a mass of land.

reply posted on 17-2-2010 @ 02:48 AM by YeHUaH ELaHaYNU

reply to post by thehoneycomb

The 12 Month Calendar was 'originated' by the Judaean's coming out of Babylon and restarting the Temple observance with the "breastplate" of the High Priest, while your Roman Calendar was only 8 Months of the year (the Agricultural Season) calculating, from the Winter Solstice. Julius' calendar was the Greek Romanized only in names.
The Calendar 'Biblical' (from Hebrews) was the one recovered in the Qumran (Dead Sea Scrolls) corpus, it is a Week based Calendar mediating Solar-Lunar alignments.
There could be no 13 month Calending if Agriculture is the determination of accuracy!

reply posted on 17-2-2010 @ 05:27 PM by Stargate2012

I guess no other thoughts besides thehoneycomb replying back on this pretty critical technical 'end' of Mayan Long Count date?

reply posted on 17-2-2010 @ 06:59 PM by riddle6

reply to post by Stargate2012

I really wouldn't be surprised. The thought that maybe the date was off a year or two or something like that has entered my mind a few times. Once people start trying to compare dates in the Myans' calendar to our own, the possibility for mistakes goes way up.

Originally posted by m0r1arty
Who duped us and for what reason?

Self-fulfilling prophecy? Have everyone (at least in the Western world, I don't know how big the 2012 Mayan date is in other parts of the world) kill each other so 'they' don't have to waist materials? Or maybe 'they' just wanted to laugh as they watch all of their minions run around like chickens with their heads cut off because they think the end is near.

reply posted on 17-2-2010 @ 07:05 PM by Stargate2012

Thanks for the reply. Once people understand, just like I did recently that you don't start counting the calendar from 0 but instead at 1, the whole Dec. 21st, 2012 'end date' ball game changes. It is essentially a paradigm shift!

Pages: << 1 2 >> ^^TOP^^