The Mayan 9 Levels of Consciousness-Entering 9th and Final Cycle Feb 10, 2011

page: 3
31
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Truther101
 


So, if they're using Coba as their source then I guess that means they're using Stela 1. The problem with the way they use Stela 1 is that they're ignoring a very large portion of it. Essentially the reason that Stela 1 is used is because it has the earliest creation date of any Stela. This gave Calleman the idea to apply the tzolkin to this extended long count. He found that 13 hablatuns would be equal to 16.4 billion years. He then noticed that this is close to the date that scientists place the start of the universe and that If one starts at hablatuns and goes up in levels up to uinals you have nine levels. This combined with Tortuguero Monument 6 lead to him coming up with the nine levels of consciousness. However, there is no stela or monument that places the creation date at 13 hablatuns. In fact the full Long Count date on Coba Stela 1 is:

13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.13.0.0.0.0
4 Ahau 8 Cumku

This corresponds to a time span of 6.5 x 10 to the 22 second years. In other words it places the start of the universe trillions of years before what physicists have found. So, pretty much the nine levels of consciousness theory is based on willful ignorance and an intent to deceive.

Mesoamerican Long Count Calendar

Here is a link to a forum where Dave Stuart, one of the leading Mayanists in the world, and Christian Prager, a Mayan epigraphist discuss Tortuguero Monument 6.
Tortuguero Prophecy




posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


If you check out the post before your last you will see that i confirmed they are using Tortuguero Monument 6. and Callemans detailed explaination on his theory. Let me know what you think.
edit on 8-10-2010 by Truther101 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Truther101
 


I know the how Calleman developed his "theory." I also know that he had to ignore facts and alter facts in order for his "theory" to be feasible. If you want a more in-depth understanding of this hoax feel free to check out Calleman's books. I suggest starting with this one. When you're reading it though, just remember that despite what Calleman might say, he doesn't actually have anything that could be construed as evidence.



posted on Oct, 8 2010 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


Ok. As much as everyone has their own theories in such, i like his, and due to Longolds DEATH, i dont really think they are trying to benefit from it at all. It seems as if Longold was a really nice person and doesnt want it for the money. Either way, i will keep this in my "probable box", so if any of it ends up coming up in the future, ill be able to pull it out as a reference. IMO, they are really dead on with their theory matching up with current events.
edit on 8-10-2010 by Truther101 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2010 @ 09:15 PM
link   
Awesome stuff! Great first post too. I am anxious to here more.reply to post by Truther101
 



posted on Oct, 20 2010 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by HUMBLEONE
 


Thanks! Still surprised no one else has commented on this!!!



posted on Oct, 20 2010 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by ZiggyMojo
 



Quantum Physics says that an elephant could fall from the sky..

Actually, that's not true is it?



posted on Oct, 20 2010 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by -W1LL
 



stories about the Maya like the Gregorian calendar that needs to be adjusted twice a year (the mayans are laughing)

Can you explain the twice a year adjustment?

There are fallacious claims that the Mayan calendar was more exact. I have asked in many threads for a demonstration that this is true and so far no one can substantiate this claim.



posted on Oct, 20 2010 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Truther101
 


That's not true. The Gregorian calendar is based off the Julian calendar. The Julian calendar is based off the Egyptian calendar.

Calendars and their History



posted on Oct, 20 2010 @ 12:53 PM
link   
Interesting that Mayans state what is interpreted as 9 levels of consciousness. I read the Quaran in part recently and noticed a similar message that stated god had made 9 levels of a ceiling above us before we could reach heaven, or something to that extent. I need to find that section and compare.



posted on Oct, 20 2010 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Truther101
 


You get to the part of "cosmic energy shifts" and you realize that this guy has no idea what he is talking about. He claims he knew someone who was a real scientist and yet tosses in this ridiculous concept.

I skimmed over the Calleman write up. Then I noticed the photo. Take a look at the photo with the 9 underworld labels. The bottom layer is cellular. The Maya did not know about cells. Farther up it says galactic underworld. The Maya did not know about galaxies. Clearly, 2 of these underworlds are modern and not Mayan.

Calleman is making this stuff up.



posted on Oct, 20 2010 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Truther101
 


The problem I see with this thread is the denial of the hoax being perpetrated. The reasons are vague and poorly thought out. You gave the thumbs down due to a tongue in cheek shirt comment, yet you support the claims for the following reasons:

1. It makes sense
2. He seems to know what he is talking about
3. Seemed like a sincerely good person
4. Who's to say what is right
5. No one can ever know for sure
6. It's just a theory
7. How you feel about an issue is as important as logic

When I read such claims about the reason to believe something I think of Bernie Madoff. He fit all of the above.

The one thing we do know is that the interpretations of the Maya by Calleman are as wrong as the claims made by Sitchin about the Sumerians. Making stuff up is the type is the essence of these tall tales by Calleman, Sitchin, and others.



posted on Oct, 20 2010 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by -W1LL
 



stories about the Maya like the Gregorian calendar that needs to be adjusted twice a year (the mayans are laughing)

Can you explain the twice a year adjustment?

There are fallacious claims that the Mayan calendar was more exact. I have asked in many threads for a demonstration that this is true and so far no one can substantiate this claim.



daylight savings>?? there is another adjustment in time that I am thinking of but cannot remember the name I think its once every year or something has to do the with the earths wobble.

do some research on their calendars and then come to a conclusion I cannot teach what the Maya Knew.



posted on Oct, 20 2010 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by Truther101
 


I know the how Calleman developed his "theory." I also know that he had to ignore facts and alter facts in order for his "theory" to be feasible. If you want a more in-depth understanding of this hoax feel free to check out Calleman's books. I suggest starting with this one. When you're reading it though, just remember that despite what Calleman might say, he doesn't actually have anything that could be construed as evidence.


you also say you know he had to ignore the facts and alter them...
then your source is his book and that we need to remember HE has no evidence???

I missing your evidence?



posted on Oct, 20 2010 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


thanks for that interpretation and links.



posted on Oct, 20 2010 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by -W1LL
 



daylight savings>?? there is another adjustment in time that I am thinking of but cannot remember the name I think its once every year or something has to do the with the earths wobble.

do some research on their calendars and then come to a conclusion I cannot teach what the Maya Knew.


Daylight savings is not an adjustment to the calendar.

I have looked at the Mayan calendars and cannot see that they are more accurate than our time keeping systems. Our systems are so accurate that we have to adjust our time with leap seconds, a feat only possible with modern technology.



posted on Oct, 21 2010 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by stereologist
 


Its not about denying it a "hoax", its about accepting new ideas and possibilities of the Maya's belief, and what they are trying to educate us on whats to come in the future. Its obvious that they were extremely advanced in their knowledge of stars, and planets etc. In which we cant deny what they are trying to say with all of this.
edit on 21-10-2010 by Truther101 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2010 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Truther101
 


The Maya were good astronomers, no doubt. But they were limited to the devices they had. They only knew about the visible eye planets. Due to the substantial errors in their Venus tables there is substantial debate how best to reconcile the data with modern much more accurate information. That is one of the problems with coming up with a correlation function between out calendar and theirs. Another poster, xcaliber, has already shown that their start of creation date is many orders of magnitude greater than what is accepted.

This is about the interpretation of the Mayan records by Calleman and et al. There is nothing to support their claims and substantial evidence to show that they are wrong. This is pointing out the intentional misrepresentation of the Mayan culture. That's what a hoax is.



posted on Oct, 21 2010 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by Truther101
 


The Maya were good astronomers, no doubt. But they were limited to the devices they had. They only knew about the visible eye planets. Due to the substantial errors in their Venus tables there is substantial debate how best to reconcile the data with modern much more accurate information. That is one of the problems with coming up with a correlation function between out calendar and theirs. Another poster, xcaliber, has already shown that their start of creation date is many orders of magnitude greater than what is accepted.

This is about the interpretation of the Mayan records by Calleman and et al. There is nothing to support their claims and substantial evidence to show that they are wrong. This is pointing out the intentional misrepresentation of the Mayan culture. That's what a hoax is.


Understood, but at the same time you should not even comment on xcaliber showing their creation date being "many orders of magnitude" greater than what is accepted, when what is currently accepted is still a theory and changes almost every year! Seriously come on, i think comparing "accepted" theories to proposed/"un-accepted" theories (if your defining "accepted" as scientists "approving" the theory to be plausible), still does not assist your defense as this being a hoax.

It is he-said-she-said until we get a real Mayan descendant to confirm which is false.
edit on 21-10-2010 by Truther101 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2010 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Truther101
 



when what is currently accepted is still a theory and changes almost every year!

Two thoughts here. One is that you are using the word theory in the vernacular and not as it is use din science. Two, The value is not changing much. The value changed quite a bit just after the Time Machine was written by HG Wells. The time traveler goes just 35 millions of years into the future to see the end of the sun. Now we believe the sun will last 5 billion more years. Why the difference? One year later, in 1896, radioactivity is discovered. In the years to come dramatic new theories on stars come to light. The Maya did not have even a basic understanding of chemistry or thermodynamics that had been used by scientists to come up with the 35 million year time frame.

The earlier theory and the new theory are based on facts. These facts are used to make predictions. Predictions are tested. Evidence is amassed for and against a theory.

These other ideas or speculations you propose are not theories. They don't meet the basic notions of what a theory is.





top topics
 
31
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join