Posted by: Johan Normark | August 3, 2012

Brief update

I am just back from a 6,5 weeks long vacation in Vietnam, Malaysia and Indonesia. That is the only reason why I have not posted anything during this period. I have only moderated the comments on the blog but I have not found time and energy to respond to them. On one occasion I did not have proper internet access for two weeks (in case you are one of the commentators). Next two weeks are busy as well so there will probably not be much activity on this blog until the end of August.



  1. A topic for discussion and clarification: Regarding the “galactic alignment” (simplified as the solstices aligning with the galactic equator) circa 1998/2001, I coined this phrase (1991) within an astrological context suggesting a relationship to the Harmonic Convergence (1987) and the end of the 13-baktun (2012). I noted 13-tun cycles connecting these times (1987-2000-2012). This has been confused with an alignment/conjunction of the Dec. solstice with the galactic center, which astronomically and astrological occurs circa 2240. My “galactic alignment” insight has been credited to the “ancient” Maya and taken far out of context. Its astrological “meaning” has not been fully discussed or disclosed. Think of how one lines up a pool cue BEFORE making the shot. It is only one of several factors contributing to the astrology of 2012. Other factors, involving Venus and eclipses, are accurately forecast in the Dresden Codex.

  2. How is this related to my post?

  3. The galactic alignment has appeared several times on this site. The version mentioned is based on John Jenkin’s misinterpretation. A proper understanding of this topic sheds a light on 2012 that may replace the confusion and ignorance that presently engulfs it. From where I sit, you and others do not have sufficient data to recognize the significance of 2012. Just because Jenkins handles the topic like an idiot, this does not invalid the topic itself.

    • Yes it has been mentioned several times on this blog but not in this post. I cannot move the comment to its “correct” place. If it end up in another post it is less likely to be read by someone interested.

      As for the significance of 2012 to the ancient Maya I do not actually care about that. My interest is solely related to how people treats it today.

      • I actually dropped the idea of a galactic alignment into the discussion in 1987. I did a side bar for a magazine interview with Jose’ Arguelles. Been watching the “telephone game” ever since. It even was used in the 2012 movie. NASA has a page trying to explain it away. What is funny to me is that even though so many talk about the galactic alignment, NO ONE SEEMS TO UNDERSTAND IT! It has served the purpose of associating 2012 with something “GALACTIC” in the minds of many. Healthier than the Coe/Jenkins end of the world association, imho.

      • As I have said several times before: I do not believe the Long Count is associated with any specific astronomical event. Hence, I care little if you or Jenkins delivered the idea first since I believe it is erroneous in the first place.

      • The so-called long count does have an astronomical basis. I have discussed part of it at Aztlan. No one seemed interested. YOU DO NOT HAVE ALL THE FACTS. I can demonstrate the astronomy of it and have not done so publically for various reasons. It is NOT based on the Greek theory of the precession of the equinox. My source is the Dresden Codex, an authentic Maya document. But you said you didn’t care about 2012, only how people treat it. So I will stay within your parameters. Most everyone, including you, have an opinion based on very limited data. I believe ignorant is a good description of that situation. The resistance of people to pursue the facts looks to me like stupidity. What do you think?. A heads up here: if you view me and my work THROUGH the filter of Jenkin’s, I guarantee you will hit a dead end, hard.

      • Reread this part. The “galactic alignment” is a modern astrological hint at the significance of 2012. Jenkins tries to credit my work to “ancient Mayans”, but that is fantasy, as you probably already recognize. He has been the “door to door” saleman for this concept, something I had no interest in doing. Much prefer deciphering the “Book of Light” aka the Dresden Codex. This has all served to associate 2012 with the idea of “GALACTIC”. Along with Arguellus, some of us have been offering an alternative to the Armegeddon prediction made by the academic Michael D. Coe in 1966, the source of the 2012 phenomenon. My idea has made it to a NASA websight and the 2012 movie. You even write about it. Shirley Maclain discussed it on Oprah. My name is on the Wikipedia 2012 page. I see that as a job very well done. I don’t see your name on Wikipedia’s ontology page. Maybe you don’t exist! LOL

      • Oh man, you are doing a Calleman (i.e. trying to impress me and others with various accomplishments). Since you are almost like Einstein (he has probably made it to NASA’s website [the correct spelling I assume] and Oprah), I would expect you to be fully occupied with work and not looking for attention on a small blog. This in itself indicates that few people cares about your ideas. Anyway, in what peer-reviewed journals do I find your work published so I can evaluate it?

      • I don’t do peer reviewed journals. I am an astrologer. A “galactic” astrologer.. Considering an academic started the 2012 doomsday meme, I don’t have much respect for that world. I am here to defend the “galactic alignment” from further abuse by those who don’t understand it. I find you have not done your homework on this topic and choose to attack easy game like Calleman and Jenkins. I have no interest in you or your work either, outside your public comments about 2012 and the “galactic alignment”. This seems to be a good forum to offer some facts for those who may be interested. Consider that “philosophy” is maybe 2500 years old. Astrology’s roots are several thousand years older. Modern science is a toddler with a few hundred years under its belt. Prominent predecessors in my field field include Ptolemy and Kepler.

      • Sure you do not do peer-review. You would not pass it successfully. But that is because others are fools and you are a misunderstood genius. Too bad you were born in the wrong century. Science as a toddler has some refreshing capacities whereas astrology is an old senile man that only repeats pointless nonsense. Good luck defending that. You will not convince me though.

    • Since you presume to KNOW what I “believe”, just like Jenkins actually, I see no point in this discussion since, for me, it is about facts, such as described by the “numbers” in the Dresden Codex, not “belief”. The solar eclipse on Nov. 13, 2012 is forecast to the day in the Dresden Codex. This is your blog and so I guess you can be abusive toward those who challenge your limited beliefs. By the way, Hoopes references my work in that new “scholarly” tome on 2012. Have a nice armageddon.

      • You started the abusive jargon and this post is not about your ideas. Who is actually challenging my “limited beliefs”? You? Lol. Please explain what these beliefs are. Are you challenging me in OOO, SR, Deleuzeoguattarian ontology, etc? These issues are what interest me, not what a contemporary astrologer believe about the Dresden Codex. Do your homework about my own work before you jump to conclusions. You can find it on this blog or on

        Unfortunately I do not believe in armageddon so I cannot enjoy it, but thanks anyway. Too bad that Jenkins got all the attention. You should do a better job next time you find out the big secrets of the ancients…

      • You don’t seem to believe 2012 has significance beyond human belief. Yet it is your most favored topic here. Kinda like Jenkins. Hmm. So the “secrets of the ancients” will remain just that, secrets; sacred secrets.

      • As I said, do your homework. However, our correspondence so far indicates that you are incapable of doing that.

  4. Simply stated: I know Jenkin’s version is erroneous. You have not considered what I am talking about here and seem to be jumping to conclusions. Is that what you are about? Consider the possibility that someone does actually understand the Maya calendar; the authentic one, not the Mayanist reconstructed theory there of, or the new age versions. Observing to see how open-minded YOU are.

    • Your comments here reveal your own limits. These are the limits of a crank:

      • Explain specifically in this case. You don’t seem to be paying any attention to what is being said here. If this were the Olympics, you would be kicked out for ungrounded bias. Kinda like a racist.

      • If you do not see the obvious then you are a crank. I’ll help you out. For example, you say: “Consider the possibility that someone does actually understand the Maya calendar; the authentic one, not the Mayanist reconstructed theory there of, or the new age versions. Observing to see how open-minded YOU are.” You are apparently believing that you are that person who knows better than anyone else, better than Mayanists. You see yourself as open-minded and others as the opposite. Self-delusional ideas of personal grandeur is characteristic of a crank.

      • Since the “Maya calendar” is astrology and the original 2012 prophecy is an astrological forecast, someone like myself, trained in multicultural astrology may very well know better than the Mayanists. When I read Forsteman, who formulated much of the modern Mayanist version of the Mayan calendar and specifically the long-count, it was clear, to me, he didn’t understand the astrology involved.

    • Mr. Mardyks, could you maybe just go away, enjoy being the only person the ancients entrusted with their sacred secrets, and gloat over how us us stupid people (including John Major Jenkins) will run smack into armageddon because we didn’t listen to you?

      • Mux Tun,
        Do you know who imparted the “sacred secrets” to the “ancients”? Who are you btw? A direct answer to your question is “maybe”.

  5. Who am I? A Mr. Nobody who wouldn’t be worth 2 minutes of your time. Far as I can tell, the main “sacred secret” that gets imparted through astrology etc is how to wear out one’s welcome. I don’t know who imparted it to the ancients, and you needn’t go to the trouble of filling me in on it. You must have better uses of your time.

  6. If you care to talk astronomy, real astronomy, observable astronomy and its implications, I’ll engage you and see how long it lasts (provided Johan is okay with this going on in the comments of this post).

    Anywho, I was just posting here to say it’s nice to see you back! I’d worried you’d abandoned this. Few blogs last this long.

    • Sure, I can let you discuss astronomy with Mardyks on this blog if he is willing to.

      I never write that I will be on vacation for safety reasons (although I doubt that burglars read my blog). Neither did I have good internet access, not because there was none available (most hotels had wi-fi), but because I did not bring a computer. It is also refreshing to be offline, particularly in Vietnam, Malaysia and Indonesia where I heard nothing about “2012”. Vietnam also blocks access to blogs and facebook on occasion.

    • I need to travel outside the US for not-work. Might’ve been nice to not hear pseudoscience for two months.

      • I had to confront some religious ideas instead. It is currently ramadan in Indonesia. During ramadan you are not allowed to eat and drink during daylight hours. Considering that I was travelling in a very hot country where the drivers did not eat or drink for four-five hours in heavy “chaotic” traffic (by any standard), I had preferred some pseudoscience rather than putting me and my family’s lives at risk for some medieval ideas.

      • Okay, I can understand that.

  7. I’m game. What do you have in mind? Maya? I like: Jupiter-Saturn conjunctions and katuns (posted@Aztlan), Dresden Codex formula for predicting eclipses perpetually (@Aztlan also ~ both 2012 solar eclipse forecast to the day!), Venus geometrics & star alignments, for starters. FYI, I did the math for the galactic alignment myself circa 1982 before the “astronomers” were called in. Please. I’d love nothing more than an informed and intelligent dialogue on the actual celestial reality.

    • You stated that you have evidence for an alignment (either this year or some other year?) of some sort. What is this visible alignment?

  8. Mr. Robbins,

    I do believe your question was answered in my first post, that you may find on this page. Maybe I was forecasting the future accurately by answering it before you asked it!? I need INFORMED and INTELLIGENT questions to continue. If you want to limit this to what is “visible” in 3D, then you will miss most of the sublime “Maya Cosmovision” which involves multidimensions, such as those explored in modern string and M-theory(s). It is the interrelationship between what is appearing in 3D and its “alignment” with higher dimensional realities that make 2012 what it is. The “tip of the melting iceberg” that appears in 3D would be: 1. The cycles of Venus that the Dresden Codex amplifies into multi-hundred year “geometrical” patterns. This ain’t for growing corn! 2. Jupiter-Saturn conjunctions that form multi-thousand year patterns (ala Kepler and beyond) that are the “structure” for the modern, reconstructured Mayanist so-called “long-count”. 3. Eclipse cycles that also develop into multi-hundred year PATTERNS that describe hyperdimensional geometrical shapes and 4. the “galactic alignment” which is composed of spinning octahedral geometries, that can be approached by “connecting” the equinox and solstice “points” with the poles of the ecliptic. Maybe not so naked eye as you would like, sorry! These all need to be visualized FIRST to “see” how they “ALIGN” together. This is where it starts … Are you ready for this. Next question?

    • This is not my expertise but you seem to base all of your “multidimensions” on Euclidian geometry. If so those are hardly “multidimensions” a la string theory. I’ll bet all these “geometries” you talk about all can be reduced to the same topology that is being bent and stretched into different geometric patterns. Topology is more symmetrical than geometry (but now I am going too much into Deleuzian/DeLandian territory). If you are looking for a “higher” (transcendent?) order behind your pattern you are on the wrong track. These are all emergent and immanent patterns from more symmetrical forms to more assymmetrical forms.

      • Johan,

        I am talking galactic astrology, not physics or any other scientific discipline. If you can not enter this world with respect, then you can remain in the “dog house” for publically calling me a crank. Your mates include Professor Hoopes for calling me a fortune-teller and long-term resident John Jenkins who likes to project and call me a vampire.

      • Yes, JMJ is a close friend of mine, just like Calleman.

      • Johan,

        I am making a gallant effort at being respectful. If I wasn’t, I’d be stepping down to your level and calling you names, too, and being more direct about how ignorant, stupid and malicious your comments toward me are. I’d would also quote the parable about “not putting pearls before dogs and pigs, lest they stomp on them and rend you”, thus implying that you are no better than a stupid dog or ignorant pig. But you see, I am NOT going there, so consider yourself respected. I have left sufficient “pearls” here so anyone who cares enough can begin understanding the “real” galactic alignment and get clued into what 2012 is about. May you find worthy opponents in your armegeddon battle. Remember: “It ain’t me babe”

      • Ignorant, stupid, dog, pig, etc. Yes, you are very gallant and respectful. Facepalm…

    • The only thing I see in your first post is that you say that the alignment everyone is talking about for 2012 actually occurs in 2240. However, it is not physically possible based on the geometry of the solar system for the sun to EVER appear near the center of the galaxy. The sun goes through ±23.5° declination, whereas Sag A*, which marks the center is at -29.01° declination. The coordinates will never line up (at least not for many millions of years until maybe we get into a slightly different vantage point in the galaxy).

      If you would like to discuss string theory, I will first ask for your qualifications to do so. I’m an astrophysicist. If you want to talk about this, I need to know that I’m not speaking with an “armchair scientist” who doesn’t actually know what they’re talking about. Otherwise I will not engage you.

      As to your enumerate alignments …

      1. What significance are you placing on what alignment?

      2. Jupiter and Saturn each have years of about 11.9 and 29.4 Earth years, which would have a “resonance” every 348.9 Earth years. Not thousands of years.

      3. This point sounds like a word salad of important-sounding terms. At the most basic level, an eclipse is a 3-spatial and 1-temporal dimension occurrence that we see at some locations on Earth – smaller locations if you’re talking solar, larger if you’re talking lunar. A pattern of a hyperdimensional geometric shape does not mean anything in this context.

      4. This is another word salad of terms that mean nothing together. For example, the ecliptic has no poles just like Earth’s equator has no poles. The ecliptic is the sun’s path through the sky. Another example – “spinning octahedral geometry” is a nonsensical combination of terms. “Spinning geometry” does not mean anything (perhaps you mean a rotating reference frame?) nor does “octahedral geometry” unless you’re talking about the basic geometry of an octahedron, known in gaming circles as a D8.

      • Hmm. Maybe go back and find the word “conjunction”. I will give you the benefit of the doubt just this one time. Conjunction is defined in astrology as two celestial events that share the same degree of longitude regardless of latitude. Clear? I have been aware of the relative position of galactic center to the ecliptic for thirty years now. Its longitude currently is 267 and what astrologers call 27 Sagittarius. The Sun is conjunct here yearly on Dec. 17-18. The Sun is conjunct Sirius, astrologically, on the 4th of July. Ben Franklin was an astrologer also. The precessing solstice at 270 will reach conjunction with galactic center circa 2240. Some of us have been discussing the solstice
        “aligning” and thus crossing the galactic equator (1998-2001) since the early
        1980s. Your defining the ecliptic as the Sun’s path is humorous, as
        scientifically it is the apparent path of the Sun and actually a projection of
        the Earth’s orbit. 🙂 if you

      • You seem to know what I mean by pole of the ecliptic. If you can not follow and visualize the octahedron, then this is the end of the world and good armegeddon to you. To clarify: I am not here to argue, fight or take criticism. If you want to learn something about the astronomy of 2012, then be respectful. Johan, this goes for you also.

      • The pole(s) of the ecliptic is/are at 90 degrees latitude and also 90 degrees from both equinox points and both solstice points. This defines an octahedron on the celeestrial sphere, for those who may genuinely want to begin the journey of Maya CosmoVisioning. The Maya built more pyramids in this shape than all other civilizations combined. As the equinoxes and solstices precess, this octahedron is spinning in relationship to the background of stars. This is step one needed to begin understanding what I mean by “galactic alignment”.

      • You sure demand respect from others but you show no respect for them. Hilarious. Btw, have you noticed that the “Maya pyramids” are not really octahedrons? Perhaps there are stepped octahedrons as well? Do they have stairs? Oh, never mind reality…

    • Since this is Stuart Robbins’s discussion with, I won’t mind if you don’t answer, but there are a few things that I wonder about. For example, you said “If you want to limit this to what is ‘visible’ in 3D, then you will miss most of the sublime ‘Maya Cosmovision… “.

      Speaking strictly for me, I don’t necessarily want to limit this to what’s visible in 3D, but I would like to have some specifics about what you claim “is” visible in 3D before you go on. Like, what exactly are these multi-hundred year “geometrical” patterns, multi-thousand year patterns, etc.? Surely you can describe them in terms of how orbital parameters of the planets vary with time? And maybe make some good clear diagrams, clearly labeled, and upload them to Flikr so you can post a link to let us se what you’re really talking about in 3D, before you go multidimensional?

      • Wow. Mr. Go Away Mardyks now wants a free workshop with diagrams! Go find Keplers diagram of 40 jupiter-saturn conjunctions and consider this: Imagine a 5D hypercube sitting on your desk. Most will see only a 3D cube, and not be aware of the two additional dimensions of the hypercube. Now imagine another one that is “aligned” and touching the first one only in the fifth dimension. This is not visible in 3D. So are the cubes touching? Are they “aligned”? Show me you understand the Mardyks Kissing Cube Postulate and then maybe we can proceed. Consider this also: Every katun (GMT285) for the duration of Mesoamerican civilization (1500bce-900ce) contained a Jupiter-Saturn conjunction. The katun did not and the pattern was broken!!! This was the final use of the so-called long-count by the Maya and the fall of their civilization. Meditate on what THAT implies.

      • LOL… Maybe you should take up a basic book on Maya archaeology after all. “The fall of their civilization” did not really occur If we ignore the 18th and 19th century idea behind “falls of civilizations” (almost new ideas by Mardyks standards being a fan of Kepler), there is something going on in the Puuc area and at Chichen Itza quite some time after this. Just sayin’…

        “The Mardyks Kissing Cube Postulate” – wow, is that a commonly used term in astrology?

      • I switched from “go away Mardyks” to “OK, let’s hear what you have to say” because you indicated to Stuart Robbins that you were going to talk real, observable astronomy. See your response (August 7, 2012 at 05:52) to his invitation (Stuart Robbins on August 7, 2012 at 05:00).

        I’m not asking for a free workshop, just diagrams that bear out the supposedly observable 3D aspects what you’re saying here. Apparently another of the sacred secrets imparted through astrology is making strawman arguments, reversing the burden of proof, and not keeping your word.

      • MuxTum,

        For whatever reason you don’t seem to make an effort here to understand, I’ll make it easier for you. Here’s the Kepler diagram:

        If you just want to be a bully and fight, then you have yourself a nice armegeddon, also. Enough pieces to the puzzle have been left here and I trust someone with the proper motivation and intelligence can start putting them together.

      • I offered to be available for dialogue, NOT debate, NOT argument and surely NOT abuse. Johan, maybe you could send me a copy of Coe’s 1966 book on the Maya. You know, where he predicts ARMEGEDDON in 2012 and where he single-handedly made the biggest blunder in anthropological history by starting this insane 2012 phenomenon. Just kidding … really (about sending me the book). I am reading the Dresden Codex, and its forecasts for this time, and am not, soooooo am NOT interested in the opinions of Mayanists. <=PERIOD!

      • So why are you here? Just to abuse others and claim you don’t? Your presence here indicates that you either are interested in what Mayanists have to say or you are just looking for an argument (I believe it is the latter).

        Coe’s 1966 book did not predict anything of the sort in 2012. He mistakenly thought 13 Baktun would fall on December 24, 2011. Biggest blunder in anthropological history? Sure…

        You do seem to have problem with evaluating basic archaeological “facts” and therefore you do not respond to them. The Maya pyramids are not really pyramids, they are stepped buildings. Do you see steps/platforms in the sky as well? What about the Maya sites existing after Explain their existence from your perspective. Maybe then we can have a serious discussion on this archaeological blog. If you want to discuss astrology I am sure there are other venues for you.

  9. Just to let you know that Google didn’t show any results for “Mardyks Kissing Cube Postulate”. Also, I’m sure Mr. Mardyks knows what a postulate is:

    “A proposition that requires no proof, being self-evident, or that is for a specific purpose assumed true, and that is used in the proof of other propositions; axiom.” (

    Seems like even if there is such a postulate, it’s just one more thing Mardyks wants us to assume is true.

    • Johan,
      If you read what I actually wrote here, you’d read that I am here to defend the “galactic alignment” from ignorant commentators such as you. Duh. I stated I have no interest in you other than your public comments on 2012 and the GA. Excuse me for getting a bit defensive after being called a crank. I took a “when in Rome, act like a Roman attitude”.
      The Mardyks Postulate is based on the hypercube example offered here. Try to understand that. LOL. You
      can find my name on the 2012 phenomenon page, where you and Johan can go and
      also read for himself what Coe ACTUALLY WROTE that indeed started this insanity.

      I’m done here boys, unless Stuart says something intelligent and informed about the topic at hand.

    • Strange, I did the same thing, adapted myself to your accusations of me and others for being ignorant of your great research. That came long before I labelled you a crank…

      Still no response to the archaeological record that undermines your basic believes about pyramidal shapes,, etc. I am sure Stuart has something intelligent and informed to tell you but I suspect it will miss the target, like the basic archaeological data that I wanted you to respond to. Good luck trolling somewhere else. Please come back after “armageddon” and give us your excuses to your failed research. I’ll be happy to include them in my book.

      • Johan,

        I am not here to discuss what you think I believe. I said this already, yes? You can’t seem to follow what I say and are nowhere close to any insight into what I believe. Fighting others based on what one believes they believe is the ticket to armageddon. The Maya prophecy for 2012 has NOTHING to do with what Coe started in 1966. You stated you don’t care about the authentic Maya prophecy. That is obvious. Maybe this 2012 Armeggedon thing is a subliminal mind control experiment. It seems to be working. An academic started it and the victims believe it was the Maya or New Agers. Read what Coe actually wrote, okay? The date has been corrected in editions since the 1980s and is still in print and still selling!

      • If your insight makes you happy, good for you.

  10. “The Mardyks Postulate is based on the hypercube example offered here. Try to understand that.”

    If it’s not too much trouble, could you state the postulate that you want me to try to understand? I mean, if I try to guess it, and get it wrong, it’s armageddon for me. Book One in each of the following shows what the statement of a postulate looks like:

    • The hypercube example is stated here. Try and answer the questions asked. Are the cubes aligned? Are they touching? Let’s do A before going to B. Is that okay with you?

      • I’m sorry, but no, that’s not okay with me.

        Please recall that you are the one who termed this the “Mardyk **Postulate**”. If you used the term **postulate** acurately, then the answer to your question can’t be deduced from anything else–it’s just assumed. If the answer can (supposedly) be deduced from the info you gave me, then it should be the Mardyk **Theorem**, or Lema, and you should be able to present a proof of it.

        Either way, it’s your obligation (rather than mine) to give the answer , and to either state that answer as an assumption (if it’s a postulate) or give a proof (if it’s a theorem).

        Euclid could do it, so I assume you can, too.

  11. For the third time: Here to defend the GA and 2012 AND HAVE NO INTEREST IN ANYTHING ELSE YOU HAVE to SAY. THIS IS WHAT I MEAN BY STUPID! Why do I have to repeat myself three times? The main point is how the long-count was discontinued when it fell out of sychrony with the cosmos. A deeper analysis posted at Aztlan takes into consideration the continuence of Maya civilization through the 18th century. I was trying to keep it simple here because you and others act really stupid and don’t seem to get the basic ideas needed to understand 2012 and the GA.

    • Sooo gallant of you. Lol. I have not had this fun for a long time.


    Maybe you all will enjoy this satire. It is called, Let’s Get Stupid About 2012. It is very hilarious.

    Peace, Love & Bliss,
    Ray Mardyks

  13. After much soul searching and prayer, I believe I have come up with a way to reach common ground here. Imagine two 3D balls on a table. The balls are touching. See that? From the 2D perspective of the table, are the balls touching? No. In 3D, there are touching. Is that easy enough to follow? So, the “galactic alignment” occurs primarily in the fifth dimension of a ten dimensional model of the cosmos. Not the same as string theory, but similar. The alignment itself is not perceivable from the third dimension, while portions of the celestial events involved are. The “galactic alignment”, perceived as the solstices aligning with the galactic equator in 3D, is one of “several” factors that compose the multidimensional event that makes 2012 significant. In 3D, what are seen as the cycles of Venus and Eclipses (as described in the Dresden Codex) are essential components of the total “composition”. Following an “authentic” Maya calendar helps one learn the “tun”, pun intended. Ta da!

    • You said you were done here several comments ago so why are you still here? We have no problem following you. These are fairly simple ideas (about not being able to see a “higher” dimension from a “lower” dimension). That I learnt in highschool (or whenever it was). You bore me with your own self-aggrandizement. Keep your promise in earlier comment. Troll someone else.

      • If so, then show me you now understand the galactic alignment and its relationship to the astronomy of 2012. If not, then then please stfu about it.

      • Oh dear, you do have serious issues. I pity you fortune teller. Thank you and goodbye…

  14. I agree that a serious issue or two is at hand. I see a huge problem when an academic like Michael D. Coe makes a grossly irresponsible statement, such as the one that is still in print since 1966, suggesting “Mayans predicted Armageddon and total destruction in 2012” and the next generation of academics try to debunk this by blaming the hystery caused by such bad scholarship on New Agers, cranks and anyone else other than those actually responsible. Michael Coe should apologize to the world rather than make you-tube videos that blatantly try to sell this book. IMHO. Thank you for the opportunity to air this and related issues and good-bye.

    • So grown up people like JMJ, Calleman, Arguelles, yourself, etc. have no responsibility in launching bogus ideas? How nice it is to have someone else as a scapegoat… I have criticized Coe for including ethnocentric ideas about Postclassic Maya and the Lacandon Maya in my earlier writings and the 2012 idea would file under that category if you ask me. Should he apologize to the tiny part of the world that bothers about this nonsense idea? No, because you and other cranks are the ones that should apologize to people for making them fear armageddon, awaiting transformation of consciousness or whatever nonsense is being proposed. Stick with the fortune-telling instead and leave the ancient Maya to the professionals.

      • If you read what I have have published, you will find that I make no claims about Ancient Maya. It was JMJ who credits my galactic alignment to the Ancient Maya. You don’t see me interpreting the Dresden Codex, do you? Please aim your arrows at the appropriate victim in the future.

      • Of the four people you mention, I am the only professional, as you understand it, fortune-teller. Of the four, I have made the least amount of public and hyped forecasts and interpretations based on the modern Mayanist theory popularly called the Mayan Calendar. Come on, the “long count” is a modern reconstruction. As an astrologer, I actually understand how this system works and is to be used. Maybe people should seriously consider an astrologer when it comes to astrological matters, rather than a … whatever JMJ is, a biologist or an art teacher. Eh?

  15. P.S. I was joking about the soul searching and prayer. : )

    • You cannot leave this site can you?

      • While I do have personal preferences, I know even the gods and goddesses are often moved by the decisions of Fate or the whimsy of Maya.


%d bloggers like this: