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

reply to post by Truther101


So, what was going on trillions of years ago? Once again Coba Stela 1 places the creation of the universe trillions of years ago. This is the monument Calleman used in his dating, and he completely ignores most of it because it doesn't fit with his agenda. Now, let's look at his dates.

Following the first underworld, we have th second which begins 820 million years ago. Calleman correlates this to the emergence of complex life. First off, one would think the emergence of life in general would be more important, but let's ignore that for now. The date Calleman gives does not match up with the emergence of complex life. The Cambrian explosion did not occur until 530 million years ago.

The next Underworld comes at 41 million years ago, with the emergence of "monkeys". Presently the oldest monkey we have found comes from 35 million years ago, and we have apes going back to the early Tertiary period. However, one would think that the emergence of mammals in general or the death of non-avian dinosaurs would be more important, but once again these don't fit in with Calleman's theory.

Let's move on to the next at 2,050,000 years ago. This is correlated to humans. That's all Calleman gives us is the vague term humans. Even with a very general term, Calleman is still wrong. The oldest hominid is 7 million years old, Australopithecus is 3-4 millions years old, the genus Homo is 2.5 million years old, and speech emerges in 100500 B.C.

The next, June 16th, 3115 BC is supposed to mark the beginning of writing. There is no clear cut date that separates proto-writing (which had existed for a long time before writing) and writing. It was a gradual process and one cannot point to a specific date where they were clearly different.

Following this Calleman places the start of industrialism in 1755. He gives absolutely no reason as for why this is so. He doesn't point out any specific innovations or anything, he just simply states it is so. Finally we come to the 8th Underworld starting on January 5, 1999. This is supposed to mark the start of the IT Revolution, however anyone who was alive before this date knows that the IT Revolution started before 1999. If it hadn't the Y2K bug wouldn't have been such a big deal.

So, there you have it. Not once is Calleman able to connect the start of his Underworlds to actual events. He has to rely on vagaries and random events to get his theory to fit. When you're dealing with history any date you choose is bound to be close to some date of importance. Yet, when one looks at Calleman's theory in depth one must ask why these dates don't correspond to the most important events that lead to human evolution and why many of his claims are so vague.

reply to post by Xcalibur254

Following the first underworld, we have th second which begins 820 million years ago. Calleman correlates this to the emergence of complex life. First off, one would think the emergence of life in general would be more important, but let's ignore that for now. The date Calleman gives does not match up with the emergence of complex life. The Cambrian explosion did not occur until 530 million years ago.

820 Mya is the END OF DAY 7 & 1st CYCLE, BEGGINNING OF DAY 1, 2nd CYCLE. He states that the first live cell evolved DURING Day 7 of 1st cycle(ends at 820 Mya). According to modern science, 1.0-2.1 billion years ago is when Prokaryote evolved to Eukaryote.
Eukaryote

5 billion years ago during Day 5 of the 1st Cycle Life emerged from the oceans to the shores. but during Day 6(about 4.2 Billion years ago), disasters wiped out 97 percent of life.

Timeline

The next Underworld comes at 41 million years ago, with the emergence of "monkeys". Presently the oldest monkey we have found comes from 35 million years ago, and we have apes going back to the early Tertiary period.

During the last Million years of the last day of the 2nd(Mammalian) cycle is when the first monkeys began to appear going into the 3rd (Familial) Cycle.
Primates

However, one would think that the emergence of mammals in general or the death of non-avian dinosaurs would be more important, but once again these don't fit in with Calleman's theory.

Correction. The 2nd Cycle is called the "MAMMALIAN CYCLE" in which During Day 5 is when the first MAMMALS emerge. 220-215 Mya(Mesozoic Era). (PLEASE NOTE: Calleman states that every 5th day of each cycle is the day when one of the most greatest enlightenments occur) Also in which during Day 7 of the 2nd Cycle is when the death of the Non-avian Dinosaurs occured.

Let's move on to the next at 2,050,000 years ago. This is correlated to humans. That's all Calleman gives us is the vague term humans. Even with a very general term, Calleman is still wrong. The oldest hominid is 7 million years old, Australopithecus is 3-4 millions years old, the genus Homo is 2.5 million years old,

The hominids and Australopithecus are still classified as primates/monkeys/Apes etc. arose during the last day of the Familial Consciouness cycle.
Australopithecus

Calleman refers "humans" to "Homo-sapiens" in which emerged during the first day of the 4th(Tribal) cycle. 2 Mya.

Homo-Genus

and speech emerges in 100500 B.C.

The origins of speech still to this day is under debate.
Origin of Language



You also skipped one of the most important cycles, the 5th Cultural Consciousness cycle. in which agriculture and reasoning developed and Hunter-gatherers emerged
Hunter-Gatherer
4th Millennium BC

The next, June 16th, 3115 BC is supposed to mark the beginning of writing. There is no clear cut date that separates proto-writing (which had existed for a long time before writing) and writing. It was a gradual process and one cannot point to a specific date where they were clearly different.

Correction. The 6th Cycle(National, 3115BC) is supposed to mark the beginning of the when the first nation arrises, AKA ANCIENT EGYPT founded by King Menes
Ancient Egypt

Ironically, during the first years of the 5th Day(I WILL REPEAT: Calleman states that every 5th day of each cycle is the day when one of the most greatest enlightenments occur) Is when the fall of Rome occurs.

Following this Calleman places the start of industrialism in 1755. He gives absolutely no reason as for why this is so. He doesn't point out any specific innovations or anything, he just simply states it is so.

Correction. He states that the industrial revolution begins in Europe. In which you can find in the link below all the innovations that occured in Europe at the time.
Industrial Revolution-Britain

Finally we come to the 8th Underworld starting on January 5, 1999. This is supposed to mark the start of the IT Revolution, however anyone who was alive before this date knows that the IT Revolution started before 1999. If it hadn't the Y2K bug wouldn't have been such a big deal.

Y2KCorrection. He does not state that the IT revolution occurs in 1999. He SPECIFICALLY states that during the first years of Day 7 of the 7th Cycle is when www.com emerges AKA the IT Revolution.

In which the begginning of the 8th Cycle (Ethics) 1999, is when the Y2K frenzy occured. And Y2K was BIG. There were actual companies that were made to specifically back up all their data on paper.

So, there you have it. Not once is Calleman able to connect the start of his Underworlds to actual events. He has to rely on vagaries and random events to get his theory to fit. When you're dealing with history any date you choose is bound to be close to some date of importance. Yet, when one looks at Calleman's theory in depth one must ask why these dates don't correspond to the most important events that lead to human evolution and why many of his claims are so vague.

So there YOU have it, obviously your so in depth in debunking his theory as false, when in reality you skip all thats important and try to point out every inch of imperfection in his theory when i just proved that his dates do correspond to very important events.

And let me add that most events that have occurred before the discovery of Ancient Egypt are still under debate. From the origins of writing, to the destruction of non avian dinosaurs.

. With the research i have performed, Calleman's dates prove to be on point. Seriously, all i am trying to do with this thread is put to light and open up peoples minds to different ideas, possibilities, and knowledge due to the hard times that are to come,

reply to post by Truther101

5 billion years ago during Day 5 of the 1st Cycle Life emerged from the oceans to the shores. but during Day 6(about 4.2 Billion years ago), disasters wiped out 97 percent of life.

It looks like you are confused about reading chart just like you are confused about reading my post.

The solar system is only 4.6 billion years old. The chart begins at 4.5Ba. There is no 5Ba on the chart.
Water condenses into oceans 4.4Ba.

The green stripe for life on Earth fades in around 4Ba.

That is what is on the chart which you use to support these other fake dates. You continue to fake and fudge your dates from that first entry on down.

Don't you realize that as skeptics we have to look and see what supporting evidence you claim? For land's sakes what are you thinking?

reply to post by Truther101

In which the begginning of the 8th Cycle (Ethics) 1999, is when the Y2K frenzy occured. And Y2K was BIG. There were actual companies that were made to specifically back up all their data on paper.

Actually Y2K was only as big as people's fears. In dollars and cents it was small.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by Truther101

 

5 billion years ago during Day 5 of the 1st Cycle Life emerged from the oceans to the shores. but during Day 6(about 4.2 Billion years ago), disasters wiped out 97 percent of life.

It looks like you are confused about reading chart just like you are confused about reading my post.

The solar system is only 4.6 billion years old. The chart begins at 4.5Ba. There is no 5Ba on the chart.
Water condenses into oceans 4.4Ba.

The green stripe for life on Earth fades in around 4Ba.

That is what is on the chart which you use to support these other fake dates. You continue to fake and fudge your dates from that first entry on down.

Don't you realize that as skeptics we have to look and see what supporting evidence you claim? For land's sakes what are you thinking?

fake and fudge my dates????? So i guess my superb HTML skills allowed me to fake all the links to prove my claims? when you didn't even put one link on your post to claim yours?

If your such a great skeptic, provide links with proof that my dates are "faked and fudged" because every single comment of yours has not been followed by any evidence that supports your claims. Its almost as if someone opens a thread about any type of subject and does not support their claim with any proof but their words? Your comments are as good as useless.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by Truther101

 

In which the begginning of the 8th Cycle (Ethics) 1999, is when the Y2K frenzy occured. And Y2K was BIG. There were actual companies that were made to specifically back up all their data on paper.

Actually Y2K was only as big as people's fears. In dollars and cents it was small.

Since when does dollars and cents come into play with enlightenment? Wow.

reply to post by Truther101

fake and fudge my dates????? So i guess my superb HTML skills allowed me to fake all the links to prove my claims? when you didn't even put one link on your post to claim yours?

If your such a great skeptic, provide links with proof that my dates are "faked and fudged" because every single comment of yours has not been followed by any evidence that supports your claims. Its almost as if someone opens a thread about any type of subject and does not support their claim with any proof but their words? Your comments are as good as useless.

This is not the first time that you have shown an inability to read my posts or possibly have gone out of your way to misrepresent my posts.

Your own links disagree with you. You do realize that the dates I took came from your own links? Probably not, which is why you have composed this clumsy commentary.

Let's try this again. The links I used were the links you posted.

reply to post by Truther101

Since when does dollars and cents come into play with enlightenment? Wow.

Since did anything you say have to do with enlightenment?

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by Truther101

 

Since when does dollars and cents come into play with enlightenment? Wow.

Since did anything you say have to do with enlightenment?

Maybe if you read properly you'd understand that each "day" and "night" in Calleman's theory represents Enlightenment(day) and the Application of the Enlightenment(Night). And you talk about my clumsy commentaries.

reply to post by Truther101

Maybe if you read properly you'd understand that each "day" and "night" in Calleman's theory represents Enlightenment(day) and the Application of the Enlightenment(Night). And you talk about my clumsy commentaries.

The problem is you post one thing and then claim you meant another. That's what clumsy is all about.

Regardless of what Calleman says, the Y2K issue was small and had little to do with enlightenment. If we were to look for issues related to computer system the Y2K issue was small beans.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by Truther101

 

Maybe if you read properly you'd understand that each "day" and "night" in Calleman's theory represents Enlightenment(day) and the Application of the Enlightenment(Night). And you talk about my clumsy commentaries.

The problem is you post one thing and then claim you meant another. That's what clumsy is all about.

Regardless of what Calleman says, the Y2K issue was small and had little to do with enlightenment. If we were to look for issues related to computer system the Y2K issue was small beans.

The problem is that you post one thing, and then once a person calls you out on what you posted, you then reply with a defensive comment towards something irrelevant to what you were called out on, in attempt to hide your mis-haps. Obviously, theres nothing I or anyone can do to get you out of your extremely skeptic mindset, since all of your posts and threads, are pure debunking to other peoples beliefs and thoughts.

But dont worry its ok, i think your work is done here. Continue your Dis-Info-Agent ways, and i will continue my Truther ways Peace be with you...


Anyone else has any thoughts on my threads topic ?

reply to post by Truther101

The problem is that you post one thing, and then once a person calls you out on what you posted, you then reply with a defensive comment towards something irrelevant to what you were called out on, in attempt to hide your mis-haps.

I've never discussed an issue with someone as frazzled as you are. You make these incredibly odd mistakes and then head off in some irrelevant tangent. That's tingling the wacko meter.

1. You made a false claim about my post and the age of the galaxy
2. You effectively lied about the content of one of your own links
3. You claim that there is more to your posts than you write

That's all making the wacko meter tingle.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by Truther101

 

The problem is that you post one thing, and then once a person calls you out on what you posted, you then reply with a defensive comment towards something irrelevant to what you were called out on, in attempt to hide your mis-haps.

I've never discussed an issue with someone as frazzled as you are. You make these incredibly odd mistakes and then head off in some irrelevant tangent. That's tingling the wacko meter.

1. You made a false claim about my post and the age of the galaxy
2. You effectively lied about the content of one of your own links
3. You claim that there is more to your posts than you write

That's all making the wacko meter tingle.

1. That "false claim" was in actuality a mistake, which i effectively admitted to.
2. You claim that i have lied but still have not proved it.
3. Extra B.S. in order for you to add to your "wacko meter tingle"

reply to post by Truther101

You claim that i have lied but still have not proved it.

I did not say you lied. I was clear to write that you "effectively lied." If it had been an out and out lie I would have written that.

This is what you wrote:

5 billion years ago during Day 5 of the 1st Cycle Life emerged from the oceans to the shores. but during Day 6(about 4.2 Billion years ago), disasters wiped out 97 percent of life.

You gave the following link to support that statement.

Timeline

In the following post I point out that the link you gave does not corroborate these dates.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

In this post you appear to be unable to understand that you have effectively lied by posting one thing and providing a link that suggests your dates are wrong.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Now you suggest that "Extra B.S. in order for you to add to your "wacko meter tingle".

Are you saying that you are purposely being obtuse? I certainly would believe that.

reply to post by Truther101


The problem with Calleman's theory is that it's not based in any kind of fact. As I've already pointed out the two monuments Calleman used (Tortuguero Monument 6 and Coba Stela 1) do not support his claims in any way. He found dates using his flawed method and then found historical events that happened around those dates. So, using Calleman's own sources, what historical events occurred trillions of years ago? I mean that's how far back the date on Coba Stela 1 goes, not 16.4 billion years like Calleman claims. Also, you never did respond about my source that shows that the Mayans had a single level of the Underworld, not nine. Here is an English translation of the creation myth Popol Wuj so you can read for yourself that the Mayan underworld was only one level.

Popol Wuj

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by Truther101

 

You claim that i have lied but still have not proved it.

I did not say you lied. I was clear to write that you "effectively lied." If it had been an out and out lie I would have written that.

This is what you wrote:

5 billion years ago during Day 5 of the 1st Cycle Life emerged from the oceans to the shores. but during Day 6(about 4.2 Billion years ago), disasters wiped out 97 percent of life.

You gave the following link to support that statement.

Timeline

In the following post I point out that the link you gave does not corroborate these dates.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

In this post you appear to be unable to understand that you have effectively lied by posting one thing and providing a link that suggests your dates are wrong.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Now you suggest that "Extra B.S. in order for you to add to your "wacko meter tingle".

Are you saying that you are purposely being obtuse? I certainly would believe that.

Maybe if you read properly you'd see that the second part of that section of my post states the following:

but during Day 6(about 4.2 Billion years ago), disasters wiped out 97 percent of life.

You'd be able to read perfectly on the chart it states the following:

Earth heavily bombarded by enormous rocks capable of wiping out life

Heres the Chart:

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by Truther101

 

The problem with Calleman's theory is that it's not based in any kind of fact. As I've already pointed out the two monuments Calleman used (Tortuguero Monument 6 and Coba Stela 1) do not support his claims in any way. He found dates using his flawed method and then found historical events that happened around those dates. So, using Calleman's own sources, what historical events occurred trillions of years ago? I mean that's how far back the date on Coba Stela 1 goes, not 16.4 billion years like Calleman claims. Also, you never did respond about my source that shows that the Mayans had a single level of the Underworld, not nine. Here is an English translation of the creation myth Popol Wuj so you can read for yourself that the Mayan underworld was only one level.

Popol Wuj

(BTW: its Popol Vuh ) If you perform a search, within your document, of the word "Xibalba", you'll read how they mention the different names of the Lords of Xibalba.

They no longer have consideration, or fear of our rank, and they even fight above our heads,” said all the lords of Xibalba. All of them held a council. Those called Hun-Camé and Vucub-Camé were the supreme judges. All the lords had been assigned their duties. Each one was given his own authority by Hun-Camé and Vucub-Camé. They were, then, Xiquiripat and Cuchumaquic lords of these names. They were the two who caused the shedding of blood of the men........

The translation of Xibalba:

In Maya mythology Xibalba (pronounced /ʃɨˈbɒlbə/), roughly translated as "Place of fear",[1] is the name of the underworld, ruled by Maya Death Gods and their helpers.

You can also read here and here How they mention that all of this information comes directly from the Popol Vuh, in which Xibalba was consisted of 9 different Levels of Darkness, in which the Mayan Pyramids were based off of.

This website provides great translations from the book of Popul Vuh which also speaks about the 9 levels of the underworld.

The Earth (Cab) represented as a caiman, with is Tzultacah or gods (we don’t know the number), and Xibalbá or underworld with nine levels and its gods or "Bolon Ti Kún" , That included the B'alam (Jaguar gods) Lords of the underworld - associated with caves, night, hunting (shamans often are depicted transforming into jaguars "Way". Itzam Yeh (Vucub Caquix), Cama Zotz, the one that kill the Hero twin Hunahpú in the Bat House, being Ah Puch, the God of the Death in the lower level. East (lak'in) is the direction of sunrise, associated with red (chak), the color of dawn. West (chik'in) is the direction of sunset; its color is black (ek'). North (xaman) is white (sak). The color of the south (nohol) is yellow (k'an). Green (yax) is the color of the center, of the green ceiba tree (yax´che´), representing the great World Tree itself, raised in the centre of the cosmos.

reply to post by Truther101


It is both Popol Wuj and Popol Vuh. The Mayans did not base their pyramids off the levels of the underworld. There were many pyramids that had less than nine levels. In fact ones with nine levels aren't that common. As for what the myth says, it no where states that Xibalba has different levels. What it does say is that it has connecting houses arranged horizontally in Xibalba. The multi-tiered belief comes from Codex Vaticanus A, which is a post-Columbian text. There are absolutely no pre-Columbian texts that refer to a stacked universe.

reply to post by Truther101

You'd be able to read perfectly on the chart it states the following:

Earth heavily bombarded by enormous rocks capable of wiping out life

What you say is true and rather pointless since the chart shows that no life has appeared yet on Earth.

"Maybe if you read properly you'd see that" you are very, very wrong.

Here is what you wrote:

5 billion years ago during Day 5 of the 1st Cycle Life emerged from the oceans to the shores. but during Day 6(about 4.2 Billion years ago), disasters wiped out 97 percent of life.

The chart is very, very clear to show that there is no life at 4.2 million years ago.

Your obstinate stance now makes you a liar. When you say that 97% of all life was wiped out you are telling a big fat lie. Your life shows life no appearing till well after that point in time. The 'capable' does not mean did.

So thanks for clarifying the situation. You did look closely at the chart and you chose to lie about the material presented in the chart.

Originally posted by stereologist
reply to post by Truther101

 

You'd be able to read perfectly on the chart it states the following:

Earth heavily bombarded by enormous rocks capable of wiping out life

What you say is true and rather pointless since the chart shows that no life has appeared yet on Earth.

"Maybe if you read properly you'd see that" you are very, very wrong.

Here is what you wrote:

5 billion years ago during Day 5 of the 1st Cycle Life emerged from the oceans to the shores. but during Day 6(about 4.2 Billion years ago), disasters wiped out 97 percent of life.

The chart is very, very clear to show that there is no life at 4.2 million years ago.

Your obstinate stance now makes you a liar. When you say that 97% of all life was wiped out you are telling a big fat lie. Your life shows life no appearing till well after that point in time. The 'capable' does not mean did.

So thanks for clarifying the situation. You did look closely at the chart and you chose to lie about the material presented in the chart.

As much as you loathe admitting to your gramatical mistakes above that makes your statement useless, i am able to admit to my mistakes in which i read the chart wrong that i attached in the OP, titled "Mayan Time Scale for Man's Evolution on Earth".

In which i stated:

5 billion years ago during Day 5 of the 1st Cycle Life emerged from the oceans to the shores. but during Day 6(about 4.2 Billion years ago), disasters wiped out 97 percent of life.

Which i was able to verify that it wasnt Day 5 and 6 of the 1st cycle, it was day 5 and 6 of the 2nd cycle.

Now to reiterate what i meant to say is the following:

During Day 5 of the SECOND cycle(Approx 300 Million years ago AKA Paleozoic Era) Life emerged from the seas and went ashore. Paleozoic Era

BUT during Day 6 of the SECOND cycle(Approx 251.4 Mya) 97% of all life on earth was wiped out AKA Permian–Triassic extinction event. Permian-Triassic Extinction Event

Maybe if you were not so focused on trying to make me a liar, and instead trying to figure if i may have made a mistake, that would have been clear to you. But obviously, that was not the case here.

My apologizes to everyone else in which read my post that i made the mistakes in. I am only human