Am I the only one who actually looked at John’s link? It never mentions Xultun and was supposedly written between April 2nd and 5th, 2012, although according to John’s homepage it apparently wasn’t uploaded until May 30, 2012. In any event, there is no reference at all to Xultun so there is no confirmation of John’s claim to have independently noted this. I’m not saying John didn’t, but it has to be said his claim is unverified, but certainly self-promoted.
That doesn’t trouble me. His attempt to piggyback this article of his onto the Xultun bandwagon does. John claims that in this article he proposed a “possible almanac associated with a 65-year eclipse position interval” at Palenque, that John claims is “also closely divisible by 819″. However, there is no reference at all to “almanac” in the entire article, nor does the number 819 appear even once in the text, or footnotes, or bibliography. Rather, the article is about supposed eclipses that were associated with certain dates at Tortuguero (surprise, surprise) and Palenque. Except that there are no references to these supposed eclipses at either site. John has simply noted that there were lunar eclipses that fell NEAR the dates of two inscriptions, one at Tortuguero and one at Palenque. I emphasize the word “near” because the first lunar eclipse fell 3 days before the date 22.214.171.124.6, 13 Cimi 14 Tzec (May 30, 644 in the 585283 correlation that Jenkins prefers).
So there was an eclipse 3 days before a date on Tortuguero Mt. 6. Hardly impressive when there is no reference to an eclipse in the inscription. The second lunar eclipse that John emphasizes occurred on May 27/28, 709, which he links to the date 126.96.36.199.0, 3 Ahau 3 Yaxkin (June 12, 709 in the 585283 correlation) found on the stucco panel of Palenque Temple XIX. This is 15 days off, which is absolutely absurd to see as reflecting the same event, especially when the text makes no reference to any eclipse. And that’s it for data points from John. Despite such horrible data, John goes ahead to create a table in his Appendix 1 of lunar eclipses at the Dark Rift/Crossroads. These dates are:
1. May 24, 514 (188.8.131.52.17)
2. May 26, 579 (184.108.40.206.0)
3. May 27, 644 (220.127.116.11.6 – 3 days)
4. May 28, 709 (18.104.22.168.0 – 15 days)
5. May 29, 774 (22.214.171.124.7)
Now, note that John only has dates 3 and 4 attested, even by his own admission, and these are 3 and 15 days off respectively. Dates 1, 2, and 5 are simply when those lunar eclipses at the Dark Rift should fall. So, 60% of the dates in this sequence are not referenced in any texts, and the only two that supposedly are have 5 and 15 day errors. This is ridiculous. There are actually NO lunar eclipses at the Dark Rift that are referenced in Classic Maya inscriptions, despite John’s wish that there were.
But it gets worse. John above claims that this is an “almanac” but it is no such thing. He has two dates, horribly in error even if he is correct, but they aren’t even from the same site, let alone inscription. John is making a mockery of the word “almanac”, and it seems pretty clear to me that he is simply trying to cash in on the attention to Xultun, where a real almanac is in evidence, with lots of dates that are connected in a meaningful manner, in the exact same text, in the same mural, at the same site.
Let me finish by addressing his claim that his “almanac” of lunar eclipses is also tracking the 819 day calendar. Let’s first acknowledge that the Xultun table in question has a period that is perfectly divisible by 819 and is associated with a tzolkin date that has a 1 coefficient, as all 819 day counts do. If you look at the amount of time between each of Jenkins’ lunar eclipse dates you find the following intervals:
Dates 1 & 2: 23,743 days, or 28×819 with a remainder of 811 (error of 8)
Dates 2 & 3: 23,743, or 28×819 with a remainder of 811 (error of 8)
Dates 3 & 4: 23.742, or 28×819 with a remainder of 810 (error of 9)
Dates 4 & 5: 23,742, or 28×819 with a remainder of 810 (error of 9)
Dates 1 & 5: 94,970, or 115×819 with a remainder of 785 (error of 34)
Clearly, Jenkins’ “almanac” is miserable at following 819, which shouldn’t be surprising. Furthermore, of the 5 dates in his table only one has a tzolkin coefficient of 1 and none come anywhere near to falling on an 819 day station.
I apologize for the length of this reply. Criticizing John Major Jenkins’ work is like shooting dead seahorses in a barrel. (A combination of shooting fish in a barrel and beating a dead horse, given that it is common knowledge how shoddy his “scholarship” is.) However, this post of his came across as a pathetic cry for attention, and I don’t suffer that kind of behavior lightly. It must be quite frustrating to have devoted one’s career to a topic where every new development is by someone else, and one’s own contributions regularly turn out to be contradicted by the facts and are at best ignored, and at worst held up to ridicule, by the rest of the field. On the one hand I feel badly for John, given how merciless and savage most of us are with his ideas. But then he produces nonsense like this, and tries to pass it off as scholarship of the same level and insight as that by real scientific scholars, and wants us to give him equal credit for their discoveries, when he presents no proof and only provides us with yet more pseudoscientific bunkum. At least we only have to endure his nonsense for 6 more months before even the non-academics will ignore him. 2013 can’t come soon enough.
I searched JMJ’s link myself, with the following results:
Search String: “xultun”: Not fouhd
Search String: “almanac”: Not fouhd
Search String: “819″: Not found
Search String: “eight”: Not found
Search String: “hundred”: Not found
Search String: “nineteen”: Not found
Search String: “nine”: Not found
Search String: “divisible”: Not found
Search String: “divide”: Not found
Jim Smith, see my reply to Stan above. Speaking of evasion, you seem to have not chosen to respond to my question to you on the other thread. I’d like to discuss with you why you approached me in early 2010 under the alias “Tom Brown.” At that time, I responded at length to your critiques and questions. You did not like my responses, nor did you even directly engage a dialogue about them as you because increasingly hostile and abusive. Then, “Tom Brown” (pdecordoba) disappeared and Jim Smith appeared and began posting slanderous videos on Youtube about my work, and also attacked and corrupted my biographical name entry on Wikipedia. That issue got eventually resolved when the Wiki moderators determined that you had violated the basic standards of Wiki, and they banned you. Since the time you were masquerading as “Tom Brown” you have never contacted me or approached me directly, as your true self, with your questions/concerns, all of which I already responded to. So, attention to Johan Normark: You are aiding and abetting a person whose honesty and values of ethical decency are sub-standard. Jim Smith is an intellectually dishonest person whose pathological behavior — basically that of a saboteur and a stalker — is well documented. He is an ideological terrorist.
I do not practice censorship in general and certainly not because you want me to. If a third person was to evaluate your statements in the recent comments and those made by Jim Smith I am sure you will look like the bad guy. Ideological terrorist? Are not all terrorists motivated by an ideology…?
Since JMJ continues to demand that I explain why I first contacted him under an alias, the following may interest you. I consider it only prudent to not reveal any personal information to someone (like JMJ) who’s on record as believing that regressive social elements will try to deny humanity its interdimensional birthright by blocking channelings from transdimensional beings in 2012.
As I’ve mentioned previously, the following link shows that JMJ made these same accusations before, and could not substantiate them any more than he could substantiate his accusation of “slander” against you:
Why are you not replying directly to me? I asked you a direct question. This entire recent exchange was initiated by you accusing me, once again, of not responding to your questions. I replied that I responded to your critique & questions when you contacted me 2 years ago under the alias of “Tom Brown”, and then you went forward with a slander campaign on Youtube, Wikipedia, and 2012Hoax.org, using the same inaccurate critiques that I had responded to.
Regarding your odd obsession with my friendship and collaboration with Deborah Skye King, I think you have some issues. My response is that “I don’t know” if her claims are true. I am endlessly surprised by the capacities of human beings, I know her sincerity, there are mysteries in the universe I don’t fully understand, and my mind is open. That’s all. Our tour is a good complementary offering of experiential encounter with Maya temple sites, to bridge distances between people. Get over it.
I predict you will just keep throwing up road-blocks and digressive accusations. What needs to happen is a full disclosure of your unethical tactics and exploitation of online websites. And, it should be remembered, that your secretive attacks occurred after I patiently replied to your critiques over a six-week period of email exchanges (when you were masquerading as Tom Brown).
Consequently, considering that I’m leaving for the first annual Izapa Round Table conference in Mexico tomorrow and am now going offline for several days, I will provide the link to the fact-based dossier on Jim Smith. I wanted to resolve this directly via dialogue with you, but you are unwilling to even address me directly. So, this link will now go out to William Hudson, to Johan Normak, and several other places of relevance. We will all now know about your devious and unethical behavior, shameful really. It’s too bad you just couldn’t engage an open-minded dialogue when I answered your questions and explained to you what my work was about two years ago. Here it is:
Note from the owner of the blog: I have removed the link provided by JMJ since it potentially put the man and his family in danger.
Oh dear, JMJ, this “dossier” shows your own ethics. I did not think it could sink this low but I was wrong. I would laugh at it but you apparently have no problem exposing third persons into your own crusade. Anyway, you are providing me with soooo good data for my own 2012-research…
I supposedly have “superficial understanding of 2012″ and no knowledge of his work. Yes, I am not an expert on the details of his galactic alignment theory but that alignment has nothing to do with 2012 (it has more to do with his ego). If JMJ had taken a slightly broader approach to what he is studying (within science, not New Age) he would have realised a long time ago that he is on the wrong track. Anyone disagreeing with him and showing inaccuracies in his work should therefore be censored even on websites that are not JMJ’s own. This is a typical pattern seen among pseudoscientists and cranks. My old post on cranks can serve as an explanation for JMJ’s aggressive behaviour (he is pretty aggressive considering how “high” he thinks his mind is): http://haecceities.wordpress.com/2012/01/22/2012-how-to-deal-with-cranks/
You have made a basic, though probably intentional, error in understanding my very brief note above. The first part alludes to my independent discovery (in May) of the 819-day interval in the Xultun DN. The second part links to an essay I wrote (in March) which identified a 65-year eclipse interval, based on inscriptions of Palenque. When I stated that this eclipse interval is closely divisible by 819, I was sharing the connection that I had just made, and intended to flesh out further, not the explicit content of that essay of March. I’m sure you can read English, so re-read the brief note above. I did not state that the 819-day interval was identified or discussed in the March essay. I was stating that, upon discovering the 819-day Xultun interval, and then having read the Maya Decipherment Blog note regarding its possible relation to sidereal eclipse positions, I thought back to my earlier essay of March, checked it, and discovered the close connection between my 65-year eclipse cycle and the 819-day cycle. Further investigation thus seems warranted. This was actually an attempt to share the unfolding research as it unfolds, perhaps even engage collaborative investigation. And what did you do, Stan? You looked for the one, slight, marginal, gray area of possible misreading that you could inject into my brief, one sentence post. And then, as Coe said of Thompson’s treatment of Whorf’s phonetic hypothesis, you “worried it to death.” Worse, you gleefully trampled it to death. Try to behave like a responsible scholar.
Yes, John, you provided us with a single sentence, and attached a link to your pdf. However, note that your link comes at the end, after your statement about your 65 year eclipse interval being “closely divisible by 819″. To wit: “On May 12, I independently noted this unreported 819-day interval at Xultun, and I have suggested a possible almanac associated with a 65-year eclipse-position interval I identified at Palenque, also closely divisible by 819: http://www.thecenterfor2012studies.com/18Rabbit-BolonYokte-Astronomy.pdf”
The way you wrote that sentence and provided the link only after your statement about the interval being “closely divisible by 819″ suggests that the pdf actually addressed this issue. Now you take the absurd and laughable position of posturing in trying to chide me to “behave like a responsible scholar”. Considering that you have exhibited neither responsibility nor scholarship in your own career, you’ll forgive me if I don’t take you too seriously. After all, how responsible and scholarly is it to ask your colleagues to give you credit for an idea that, by your own admission, you haven’t even researched enough yourself to know whether it is any good or not.
Your statement here was a blatant attempt to get credit for the Xultun 819 day count discovery by Barb MacLeod and Hutch Kinsman, and then to piggy back your article on the Xultun hype, by suggesting it features a similar “almanac”. All that you have done, though, is show everyone that either you haven’t the foggiest clue what an almanac is, or what precision in astronomy and astronomical almanacs means (we already knew you had problems with accuracy in your statements about the “era-2012″), or you are an exceedingly dishonest person. Your research has been so shoddy that I don’t think a single one of us Mayanists is willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. Without evidence, I don’t see how anyone will give you credit for independently having noted the Xultun 819 day count. And, as I pointed out in my reply above, your putative “almanac” from Palenque/Tortuguero is nothing of the sort and the eclipses don’t come anywhere near to matching an 819 day cycle.
Do I take glee in destroying your pretensions to be a real scholar? No. Other than disgust at your continual attempts to promote nonsense as scholarship, the only emotion you conjure up in me is pathos. I pity you. You try so hard, yet haven’t got a clue. At least the other 2012ers know enough to not try to actually debate the real scholars in the field of Maya studies. No, your ideas are not as truly batshit insane as some of the other 2012ers, but that doesn’t make your ideas any more credible. Where angels fear to tread there is only one type of person who insists on rushing in. You try so hard to present your ideas as scientific and rigorous but since you refuse to accept the verdict of testability of your hypotheses, your ideas aren’t taken seriously. You have presented us with neither an almanac nor any evidence that it was tracking the 819 day count or any lunar eclipses at the Dark Rift. You will get credit from Mayanists neither for the Xultun 819 day discovery nor for any other almanac as your Palenque lunar eclipse “almanac” is risible nonsense as I showed above. I don’t take glee in pointing that out. I wish, if you don’t actually care to follow real science and learn what that means in terms of hypothesis testing, that you just go away and leave the Maya and the rest of us real scholars alone.
By: Stanley Guenter on June 18, 2012 at 17:55
Stan, Thanks for looking at the error ranges in the various eclipse dates of the 65-year cycle I identified. Notice that almost all of those “error ranges” are less than 14 days. Because this is a possible eclipse prediction almanac, we must allow for the number of days around a lunar node position at which eclipses may actually occur. This is a well known fact that we acknowledge. As I previously mentioned, the actual eclipse dates do not provide an interval that is exactly divisible by 819 days, but if 819 was somehow being used in an almanac designed to predict the sidereal position of future lunar eclipses, then most of the actual eclipse dates are within the acceptable range. Likewise, the known eclipse tables and Venus almanacs rarely pinpoint an exact eclipse or Venus rising. That’s a fundamental tent that I’m surprised you were not aware of. Or, perhaps, you merely chose not to acknowledge it for the purpose of your unwarranted denunciation of my proposal. Nice try.
This has to be one of the most dishonest and ridiculous comments I have ever heard. “Notice that almost all of those “error ranges” are less than 14 days”. Your “almanac” consists of two dates from two different sites. (The actual eclipse dates, I sadly need to point out to you, are not part of any almanac – they are simply the natural phenomenon you claim your “almanac” is tracking.) Not only is that not an almanac, you have only two Maya dates! One of those dates is 3 days off what you claim it is tracking, while the other is 15 days off. Therefore, apparently in the world of John Major Jenkins, a single item becomes “almost all”. What ridiculous claptrap. You have nothing, John. Absolutely nothing. You haven’t a single Maya text that talks about any lunar eclipse at the Dark Rift (we know what eclipse references look like). You have only two dates that fall vaguely near eclipses, but there isn’t the slightest reason to believe that the scribes who wrote out these texts were attempting to reference any such eclipses.
And yes, John, I am more than well aware of the inaccuracies in the Venus almanacs but no, you may not reinterpret those inaccuracies as license to invent your own inaccurate almanac. The Venus almanac and eclipse tables actually have glyphs telling us what they were for, and have lots of dates in actual almanac format. You have two dates from two different sites, neither of which includes any known astronomical glyphs, and neither date matches what you say the Maya were tracking, namely these lunar eclipses in the Dark Rift. You have, literally, nothing to show for your proposal, and your hypothesis is dead in the water and can safely and confidently be relegated to the dustbin of history.
By: Stanley Guenter on June 18, 2012 at 18:33
The notion that John Major Jenkins is trying to take credit for the 819 day observation in Xultan is just plain out to lunch. The fact the 819 cycle is found in a series of lunar data is hardly even noteworthy. But if that be the case, I’d like to announce I have discovered 28 day lunar month values in the 364 day calendar at Xultan. Let the accolades begin.
By: CoffeeBean on June 19, 2012 at 23:26
“Annihilation” of the ego? Whoever is meowing that I suggested such I thing clearly has not done their homework. But that’s totally consistent with many years of flawed, presumptuous, and under-informed critique.
The 1195740-day interval (Xultun Number A) was discovered by Floyd Glenn Lounsbury in 1976 as it was clarified at AZTLAN lists (FAMSI) on May 16 in response to the comments posted by Barbara MacLeod and Ivan Van Laningham on that same date:
The 1195740-day interval (Xultun A Number) was discovered by Floyd Glenn Lounsbury in 1976 as it was clarified at AZTLAN lists (FAMSI) on May 16 in response to the comments posted by Barbara MacLeod and Ivan Van Laningham on that same date: