Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The Origins of 2012

page: 2
14
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shugo
reply to post by GLontra
 


I'd like to know how he based his prediction on a system that was in no way, shape, or form indicitive of predictions. That I-Ching was nothing of the sort, and furthermore, Terrance fixed his dates. Aside of which the idea behind 2012 is considerably older than the 1970's.



Considerably older than the 1970's??

I don't know anything about it...

I know that in the late 1960's some researchers started to talk about the end of the Mayan calendar, but the initial claims were about the date of December 24, 2011.

When McKenna mentioned 2012 in his book, in 1975, people were still talking about December 24, 2011 as the date of the "Mayan apocalypse".

So, I think McKenna was pionner in the 2012 date...




posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 07:54 AM
link   
reply to post by GLontra
 


The very fact that he changed the end date proves that his theory is nothing more than woo. He claims that his theory was based on math. Math is not flexible. If it gives an answer that is the answer. Numerology on the other hand is extremely flexible and can be used to "prove" any claim you want. It was not until after books based on the Long Count started selling that he changed his date. What does that say to you?



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by GLontra
 


The very fact that he changed the end date proves that his theory is nothing more than woo. He claims that his theory was based on math. Math is not flexible. If it gives an answer that is the answer. Numerology on the other hand is extremely flexible and can be used to "prove" any claim you want. It was not until after books based on the Long Count started selling that he changed his date. What does that say to you?



McKenna never changed his date.

He talked about 2012 in his 1975 book, that was NOT based in the Mayan calendar, but in the Chinese I-Ching.

It was the "Mayan calendar crowd" that initially miscalculated the end of the "baktun" as being on December 24, 2011, and later corrected the date to December 21, 2012.

BEFORE the "correction" in the "Mayan prophecy", McKenna was already talking about 2012, in his 1975 book about the Chinese I-Ching.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by GLontra
 


If I remember correctly he never mentioned a specific date in the first edition of his book. However, with the second edition of his book he jumped on the Mayan calendar bandwagon invalidating any claims he may have made. The only reason for him to jump on this bandwagon is by believing the origins I mentioned in the OP mentioned 2012. As they did not there would have been no reason for him to change the date other than to jump on the 2012 bandwagon.

Also, the I-Ching makes no claims about 2012. McKenna's interpretation of the I-Ching is where the 2012 date comes from. However, looking at his work it's clear that it is not the I-Ching that is giving the 2012 date but McKenna's own brand of numerology.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


He never mentioned the specific date of December 21 in the first edition of the book, but he did mention the YEAR of 2012 in the first edition of the book, from 1975.



posted on Mar, 29 2012 @ 11:01 AM
link   
Thanks for another well written statement on the origins of 2012.

I think it is particularly important to understand what the long count provided to the Mayans.



posted on Jul, 20 2012 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by Shugo
 


I'd say for many members on here 2012 has definitely become a game. Take for instance the recent Nibiru thread. In it someone says something along the lines that Nibiru is coming and when it gets here those who didn't believe in it will have egg on their face. They don't focus on the horrific outcomes of something like that occurring. Instead they focus on the other side being wrong.

In the past I have likened ATS to an MMORPG, at least in its present state, and I think it is an at comparison. It doesn't seem like people actually believe what they claim anymore. Instead what they care about is using the site as a form of escapism where they get to play a role different than the one they play in real life. Unfortunately it will be the ones that actually believe these claims that will suffer and the fearmongers will feel no responsibility whatsoever.


I agree with everything you say here except the fear mongering thing. I don't see why a site with sections for UFO's Ghost and about everything should not speculate on pretty much any subject without worrying that some person will be scared to death if they choose to read it.

I don't even see how the words " Fear Mongering" make any sense at all unless you are an authoritative person and perpetuate a fearful lie for some purpose. ATS is just people discussing and talking. If you have to continually worry about how your thoughts may scare another reading it, you are being censored to the point of no discussion.

S & F great thread well thought out. I was wondering as I have not followed the 21012 thing except to see a few threads and TV specials. Where do the get the Cosmic Rift idea out of all you have stated?


Wondering why I am on this old thread. I left the computer and when I came back it was open to this, no one else home so I thought maybe I should read and comment:-) Must have hit your name in the other one I was reading.
edit on 20-7-2012 by Char-Lee because: (no reason given)





new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 1   >>

log in

join