I have seen the top “Debunked” section before but I never commented on it since it at least attempts to debunk the doomsday nonsense. However, the author clearly does not understand how the Long Count works. Today I saw the lower half that claims to have debunked the top section. I found it on Rob Bast’s 2012 forum. It is hilarious because first someone “debunks” the doomsday without understanding the Long Count and then someone else debunks the debunking with other misconceptions.
What is wrong with the top section? Well, the Long Count is all about the count of days so leap days every fourth year does not make any difference whatsoever. The Long Count does not relate to the seasons so there was no need to add a leap day. There has also been a Gregorian calendar reform since Julius Caesar’s days. I shall not even repeat the inherent problems with the GMT correlation.
The first problem with the lower section is that the Maya Long Count is not cyclical despite the common belief among 2012ers. The Maya did not use leap days but the author apparently believes the so-called wayeb days, five days at the end of the haab, are leap days. It is not that the Maya had six wayeb days every fourth haab or so. The author also believes the tzolkin consists of 20 days and 13 months. It is 20 days and 13 numbers.
Did the Maya build pyramids to align with stars? You can align any pyramid with any star you want and time of the year. However, many pyramids are related to caves and these geological features are fairly stationary so their correlations are slightly more trustworthy. The Maya were geocentric in contrast to the stargazing 2012ers who have hijacked the Long Count for their own benefit.