This is a presentation that I will give at a upcoming conference in Nashville TN.
It is a point by point refutation of the most popular theories regarding 2012 as well as my personal opinion about the reasons for the deception.
I tried to be as thorough as possible in the debunking process, and I was able to cover many aspects of 2012 that I hadn’t already covered here on the blog or in any of my videos.
To download this presentation in mp4 format click here
If you would like to download the power point presentation without my commentary click here
If you would prefer a cliff notes version to this refutation (as this presentation is an hour long) you can view a video that I made last year called 2012 Debunked.
This is a response at least in some part to the new movie 2012 by Sony directed by Roland Emmerich. The film has an ensemble cast, including John Cusack, Amanda Peet, Danny Glover, and Woody Harrelson. It can be considered a review of the movie as well as an explanations of the specific theories proposed in that movie.
This video reviews Michael Tsarion’s Origins and Oracles DVD, and attempts to show that not only is Michael Tsarion factually inaccurate about crucial issues, but it will demonstrate that best explanation for his mistakes is that he is intentionally deceiving people. I will also show how the views he promotes is intended to indoctrinate the truth seeker into a mind set that will prepare them to accept a new version of world government and dogma, one that most truthers would never suspect as being a part of the system they once rebelled against.
I will discuss his science about 2012:
Magnetic pole shift in 2012?
Galactic Alignment
Precession of the Equinoxes
The “Golden Nebula”
The Photon Belt
Enlightenment – DNA/ Chakra changes
Other issues:
‘The Macrobes’
Lucifer
Tsarion mind control tactics
Huge mistakes
Etymology
Storytelling
Blavatsky
Motivations
Who benefits?
2012 endgame
There are several problems with this video put out by Sony Pictures which features Woody Harrelson as the doomsday guru ‘Charlie Frost’. The most frustrating thing about it to me is that it is presented in such a way as to be unaccountable for the terrible science and outright lies that it disseminates. After all its just viral promotion for the movie 2012 right? The problem is that it is done in such a way that seems logical, and it makes assertions that would seem to be unquestionably true. I dealt with some of the issues in my post Audio commentary on recent solar flare articles from NASA but in this post I will be dealing with a specific claim that the video makes about Charles H. Hapgood and the Earth Crust Displacement theory.
This theory comes almost verbatim from Graham Hancock, even down to the orange “core” analogy used by Harrelson in the video.
I was disappointed to see the video implied that Hapgood claimed that Earth Crust Displacement was caused by the sun’s radiation, but to see the full scope of the error in this video it requires a little background. I will be quoting from and excellent article which refutes both Hapgood and Hancock which can be read here:
Charles H. Hapgood was not a geologist; he was a professor of the history of science at Keene College in New Hampshire (Hancock, 1995, p. 9). His research led him to study numerous Renaissance and early-modern maps of the world. He made the startling observation that several of these maps seemed to greater and lesser degrees to depict a southern landmass shaped and sized similarly to Antarctica. Although various explorers visited the islands to the south of South America in the 17th and 18th centuries, Antarctica was not officially discovered until 1820. In addition, these maps seemed to be drawn from source maps dating back at least to the Middle Ages and perhaps even to antiquity (Hancock, 1995, p. 5). Even more startling, it seems, is that according to Hapgood, some of these maps depict not the current, icy outline of Antarctica, but instead its sub-glacial topography. This led Hapgood to hypothesize that the original source maps had been drawn by an advanced civilization thousands of years earlier, when, at the end of the last ice age, Antarctica was not completely glaciated. In fact, Hapgood and Hancock argue, at this time, Antarctica lay not at its current position at the south pole, but instead about 30 degrees further north, in a temperate climate.
This article goes into great detail about the theory, and I encourage you to read it, but for our purposes I will skip forward to the rather lengthy refutation.
The case is more complicated than it at first appears. Should we simply accept this addition to an established theory because it seemingly explains fascinating events in mythology and helps do away with anomalies in ancient maps? Hapgood (1958) and Hancock’s (1995) evidence bears further scrutiny before it is accepted as fact. Since the publication of Hancock’s (1995) book, numerous well-documented criticisms have appeared on the Internet, many of them originating in news- and talkgroups. Just as Hancock’s evidence deals with three main topics, so do the criticisms. In particular, Hapgood’s interpretations of the maps he used is suspect; most accepted evidence with respect to Antarctica contradicts Hancock and Hapgood; and Hancock’s claims about the northern hemisphere and the last ice age tend to be incorrect.
The motivation for ECD seems to be the belief that around 12, 000 years ago Antarctica was at a warmer latitude, and some method is needed to move it south. The claim that the continent was so recently situated farther north comes from the maps cited by Hapgood. The first error in Hapgood’s interpretation is the assumption that these maps showing a southern continent are in fact depicting Antarctica. Since ancient times, it was believed that there must be a southern continent to balance out the overabundance of landmass in the northern hemisphere. For Plato and Aristotle, this was also an aesthetic point: in a proper world, such a continent would exist to provide better balance; since the Greeks were aware of lands near the arctic, there should also be land near the antarctic (Wilford, 1981, p. 139). Without actually knowing the shape or size of Antarctica—or even of its very existence—a southern continent was placed on several early world maps and globes, sometimes with such engravings as: “Terra australis nondam cognita,” the “southern land not yet known,” (Wilford, 1981, p. 139).
One of the maps researched by Hapgood is the Oronteus Finaeus map of 1531, which shows a large land mass south of South America, complete with mountains and rivers (Hancock, 1995, p. 14-5). However, two things strike an observer almost immediately: the landmass represented on the map bears little if any resemblance to the Antarctica that appears on modern maps and globes, even accounting for distortions due to map projection. For example, the Antarctica Peninsula is completely missing from the map. Secondly, Finaeus’ southern continent is both far too large and far too close to South America to be Antarctica. Hancock (1995) points out another map cited by Hapgood, the 1737 map by Philippe Buache, which Hancock claims “accurately portrays the subglacial topography of Antarctica” (Hancock, 1995, p. 478) because it represents a southern continent composed of two parts, much like the actual above-sea-level land surface of Antarctica.. However, this does not represent the ice-free topography of Antarctica, since it fails to take into account isostatic rebound. That is, the ice mass on the Antarctic surface depresses the land upon which it resides. If the ice were removed, in order to maintain equilibrium, the land would ‘rebound’, albeit slowly. Such is the case in much of Scandinavia, where once ice-covered regions are increasing in elevation year by year. As pointed out in an Internet file by Paul Heinrich, “the Phillip Buache Map of 1737 fails miserably in any way to accurately portray either the subglacial bedrock topography of Antarctica [...] or the ice-free topography of Antarctica as represented by the bedrock surface as adjusted for isostatic rebound” (Heinrich, 1996, MOM and Oronteus…).
Hapgood’s argument that these maps are based upon ancient sources rests upon the assumption that Antarctica was not discovered by Europeans until several hundred years after the maps were made. Although Antarctica was not properly discovered until 1820 by Nathaniel B. Palmer (Wilford, 1981, p. 267), it is quite likely it was visited or at least sighted earlier than that by explorers and traders. Let us not forget that the Vikings visited North America hundreds of years before Columbus was born. There are other claims that the southern continent on these maps is actually Australia, as sighted by early Portuguese merchants, not Antarctica (Lunde, 1980, The Oronteus…). Weakened by this evidence, Hapgood (1958) and Hancock’s (1995) belief in an as-of-yet unknown ancient civilization becomes not only illogical, but absurd.
A review of the evidence relating to Antarctica leads to just as many problems. The first is the age of the Antarctic ice sheet. According to Hancock (1995), “researchers at the Carnegie Institute in Washington DC were able to establish beyond any reasonable doubt that great rivers carrying finegrained well-sorted sediments had indeed flowed in Antarctica until about 6000 years ago” (Hancock, 1995, p. 16). The bulk of core samples from Antarctica, however, show that there is “an abundance of evidence that demonstrates [...] that the Antarctica ice cap has been around for the last 2 million years or more [...] Ice core and other data from [sic] the Antarctica clearly show that it has been covered by an ice cap for the last 300,000 to 3 million or more years” (Heinrich, 1996, Fingerprints..). In fact, most geology text books, including Plummer and McGeary (1996), state the same. According to Hapgood, ECD caused Antarctica to move south and caused the end of the ice age in the northern hemisphere. The end of the last ice age was accompanied by a several hundred foot rise in ocean levels world-wide. However, Hapgood’s theory also claims that this shift south is what caused the Antarctic ice sheet: that is, Antarctica accumulated the ice-mass lost in the north. But in this case, there would be less of a rise in ocean levels (Heinrich, 1996, MOM and Oronteus…). In addition, the depression of the Antarctic landmass would further lower ocean levels, thus this claim on the part of Hapgood and Hancock disagrees with current knowledge about the end of the last ice age and the rise in sea levels. Furthermore, Antarctica is the world’s largest desert. It seems unlikely that the catastrophic build-up of the Antarctic ice sheet as proposed in Fingerprints of the Gods can be accounted for in such a short period of time, considering Antarctica’s climate.
Hancock’s (1995) arguments for the northern hemisphere are filled with just as many holes. According to Heinrich, the claim that “huge numbers” of animals were frozen in permafrost is erroneous: “First, their claim that hundreds of thousands of frozen carcasses have been found is simply incorrect. At most, only a few tens of frozen carcasses have been documented in all of Siberia and Alaska.” (Heinrich, 1996, MOM and Atlantis…) Additionally, most of the carcasses appear to have gone through extensive decomposition, indicating not that they were suddenly trapped and frozen, but that the remains (mostly bones) were preserved sometime well after death. Even more importantly, it seems that most of the frozen carcasses pre-date the supposed catastrophe as proposed by Hancock by many thousands of years (Heinrich, 1996, MOM and Atlantis…). One of the pieces of evidence for ECD is that different parts of northern continents (now at the same latitude) experienced different levels of glaciation (Hancock, 1995, p. 478). There are, however, other explanations than ECD. For example, the central and eastern parts of North America were covered by a large ice sheet, whereas in the topographically more varied west, mountain or valley glaciers predominated. Additionally, the last ice age was not merely one continuous event: it was punctuated by several interglacial periods. That is, during the ice age, the ice sheets advanced and retreated more than once.
It seems as if much of the evidence presented in Fingerprints of the Gods can either be directly refuted or at least called into doubt when compared with well-documented research. For example, neither the northern hemisphere evidence nor the claims about Antarctica are strong enough to support ECD, and Hapgood’s map interpretations all have other possible explanations. By these means, it is clear that there is little reason to support ECD based upon the evidence presented in Hancock’s and Hapgood’s works.
Lack of evidence alone does not disprove a theory. So far, no logical inconsistencies have been found in the theory of ECD itself. Perhaps a ‘slip’ with respect to Antarctica did not occur when and where Hapgood claims, but it might still be possible to save ECD as a theory and tie it to plate tectonics. That too, however, is a losing proposition. Valid scientific theories in general have to do two things: explain current data, and answer questions that arise from the logical consequences of the theory. ECD runs into problems particularly with regard to the second requirement.
The first problem comes from the concept of isostacy, which is “the balance or equilibrium between adjacent blocks of crust resting on a plastic mantle” (Plummer and McGeary, 1996, p. 521). As mentioned above, isostatic rebound would affect the rise or fall of sea levels, and ECD provides no acceptable solutions to this problem. Einstein’s claim in Hapgood (1958) that at a certain critical point, a slip of the earth’s crust is bound to occur due to an unevenly distributed icemass also fails to take isostacy into consideration. The earth’s crust is not rigid, as Einstein stated. Instead, as ice builds up on a landmass, that landmass is depressed an appropriate amount to carry the load. Greenland provides an excellent example of this process (Dyson, 1963, p. 103) Also neglected by Hapgood and Hancock when considering icemasses is the fact that under high pressure, ice becomes plastic, that is, it will flow in a viscous fashion. As a result, glaciers are not static sheets of ice, but rather moving bodies of ice, that expand outward (continental) and downhill (alpine). When glaciers reach the sea, they don’t simply continue to build up: pieces break off and form icebergs. Hence, between isostacy and the tendency of ice to flow plastically, the critical point mentioned by Einstein is never reached.
The whole concept of the lithosphere gliding over the asthenosphere “as the skin of an orange [...] over the inner part of the orange” (Hancock, 1995, p. 10) is misleading. Just as the lithosphere is not a rigid body, the asthenosphere is not as liquid as Hancock believes. Instead, it is composed of highly viscous rock, which, due to high pressure and temperature, behaves plastically (Plummer and McGeary, 1996, p. 425). The asthenosphere does act as a lubricating layer for the lithosphere, allowing it to move, but due to its highly viscous nature, it cannot permit the rapid, large-scale, motion claimed by ECD.
Our metaphor of the jig-saw puzzle for ECD also falls apart: not because of the ways in which plates interact, but because a jig-saw puzzle can only be moved easily in ways mentioned earlier if it is located on a table. On a sphere, problems are encountered. In a mathematical sense, there are several forms of symmetry in the plane. There is rotation around a point and reflection about a fixed line, for example. For a sphere there is only one type of symmetry: rotation about a fixed axis. Physically, this rotation causes different motion on the sphere near the poles than it does near the equator of the sphere. If the lithosphere were to rotate around an axis over the asthenosphere, one would expect greater torque and friction between the lithosphere and asthenosphere near the poles of rotation than further away from the poles. The concept of evenly displacing the jig-saw puzzle disappears when one considers the jig-saw puzzle on a sphere rather than on a plane. Assuming ECD takes place, it seems logical that near the poles of rotation there should have been some form of increased geologic activity, such as faulting or volcanism, due to increased friction between the lithosphere and asthenosphere. However, neither Hancock nor Hapgood ever cover this point.
A final nail in the casket for ECD might very well be the existence of hot spots, which are areas of “volcanic eruptions and high heat above a rising mantle plume” (Plummer, 1996, p. 521). Yellowstone National Park, for example, sits on one such hot spot. Since the existence of a hot spot rests upon presence of a mantle plume, ECD would cause a dramatic shift in the locations of such hot spots. However, since evidence shows Yellowstone to be a very old hot spot, this weakens the possibility of such a shift due to ECD occurring.
Earth Crust Displacement appears to be unable to answer important geologic questions, and indeed, it seems to go against accepted geologic knowledge. Once the evidence is considered, Graham Hancock’s claim that ECD is compatible with plate tectonics no longer seems viable. Not only is Hapgood’s ECD theory lacking supporting geologic evidence, it actually contradicts tested geologic concepts.
After completing an analysis of Hapgood’s theory, ECD doesn’t seem to present a compelling argument. Its evidence can often be ignored, because it is simply wrong. The theory itself is not well thought-out: it fails to answer numerous geologic questions. Even proposing the theory is a logical leap of faith: moving from old world maps to a theory that Antarctica was located 30 degrees further north about 12,000 years ago has no logical basis. Hancock commits another logical fallacy by claiming ECD is correct because certain other possibilities seem absurd: “Are we therefore to assume the intervention of alien cartographers [...] Or shall we think again about the implications of Hapgood’s theory [...]?” (Hancock, 1995, p. 19) Hancock just presents us with two equally absurd possibilities.
It is also important to critically analyze what is being said and by whom. Hapgood was a historian, not a geologist, and Hancock is a writer with no credentials in cartography, archaeology, or geology. It is then no wonder that for so long ECD has been ignored by the scientific community. At the same time, however, there is definitely the need for science to stay open to new ideas. There are basically two views of how science progresses: either “through the gradual accumulation of discoveries and inventions” (Hallam, 1973, p. 106) or by paradigm replacement: the replacement of one world view with that of another. In a way, global plate tectonics seemed to be a new paradigm when it was brought forth. In retrospect, it seems only natural that it grew out of continental drift and sea-floor spreading. This revolution in scientific thought, just like that of Einstein’s Relativity, should reinforce the dangers of orthodoxy and dogma in science and the need to consider the method of multiple working hypotheses. Science is empirical: its theories are dependent upon gathered evidence: not the other way around.
In the case of Hancock’s book, perhaps more research needs to be done. Perhaps most geologists agree that Antarctica has been ice-covered for millions of year, but what if there is irrefutable evidence showing the presence of rivers in Antarctica a mere 6,000 years ago? Can they be explained by some sort of interglacial period, or is it necessary to rethink out ideas about Antarctica? Although Earth Crust Displacement seems non-viable, it still raises interesting question for geology and other fields.
Hancock ends Fingerprints of the Gods with a warning of impending worldwide destruction and a second occurrence of Earth Crust Displacement. Indeed, his arguments are no more novel than those of the Neptunists and Catastrophists in the past. We may remain unconvinced by his theories, but at the same time, we have not actually found alternative answers to his questions. Perhaps someday there will be a newer, better theory to explain Hapgood’s ancient maps and truth about Atlantis. Until then, however, all we can do think critically about what we learn, ask questions, and ponder these mysteries whose answers have eluded humans for ages.
This website was a big part of 2012 fever this year, as the “IHC” had bought a whole truckload of ad space around the internet, and on their website they encouraged people to give them their information in exchange for a lottery ticket to survive 2012. This video explores not only the obvious problem with the Institute, but is a good platform to explain why 2012 is beneficial to those that would seek global government, and why they are trying to promote it as much as possible.
2012 theories are a lot like snowflakes. No two are alike. There are a multitude of reasons as to why there is so much disagreement amongst theorists and researchers regarding events purportedly to happen in 2012, and more specifically, why they believe these events are going to happen.
Let us first examine what may likely be the most common 2012 theory, which claims that on December 21, 2012 there will be some form of mystical astronomical alignment with the center of our galaxy.
There are two main versions of this part of the theory, the first of which states that the alignment occur when the sun rises above the horizon on December 21st 2012 (the winter solstice) at which point the sun will rise in the middle of the milky way, thus causing an alignment between the earth sun and the galactic center
This does appear accurate and can be verified this with an astronomy program. However, there are at least two problems with this concept, the first of which is that this event is only significant from the earth’s point of view.
The precession cycle or the 26,000 year wobble of the earth only causes the EFFECT of the stars changing position on the horizon. The visual effect only occurs from the earth’s perspective, so that if you were viewing this “precession” from anywhere else in the solar system it would be completely insignificant and uneventful.
There is no gravitational force or radiation to be expected from this event because other than the tilt of the earth, nothing will be any different than the last few thousand solstices and as such, the Earth will be no closer to the galactic center than any other day.
If the Mayans did in fact point to this event with their calendar (which we will look into later) it should be noted how the overall event is harmless and seemingly insignificant beyond its role in time keeping and/or for religious purposes. But there is no reason to believe it will be an event of a magnitude so great that there will be a pole shift or any other cataclysms, as in reality it is a visual illusion and not an “Earth changing” event of any true physical power.
Another issue with the December 21, 2012 date is that because the precession is so slow there is almost no difference between say, December 21, 2008 and , and December 21, 2012. This is because technically, the sun will “rise in galactic center” for this year’s winter solstice, just as it will in 2012.
In fact here is a quote from John Major Jenkins one of the major proponents of the 2012 theories from a part of his website called “Response to Counter arguments ” he says:
“In the interest of clarity, I will mention that it would be more accurate to say that the alignment occurs in the ERA of A.D. 2012; because precession is such a slow phenomenon, fifty years on either side of 2012 might be appropriate.”
by John Major Jenkins
The second camp of belief surrounding the 2012 alignment issue is probably the more significant of the two because it is dealing with the solar system’s actual location in relation to galactic center. This is the idea that our little solar system is moving around the center of the galaxy every 225 years or so million years or so, and while doing so it is moving up and down in a cycle crossing the plane every 33 million years.
So are we going to cross that galactic plane in 2012?
Absolutely not! According to the journal Nature, as well as many others, there is evidence of crossing this plane 3 million years ago. This would mean that we are moving away from the galactic plane and won’t be due to cross it for another 30 million years and that’s failing to mention that the margin of error in these calculations in at least 2.1 parsecs or about 6.5 light years making images like these and statements like this: completely meaningless.
What about a Pole Shift?
Although many theorists disagree on whether this pole shift will be magnetic or a physical shifting of the crust of the earth the reason for this happening in or around 2012 is usually cited as one of the following:
- Planetary alignment
- Planet X or Nibiru and its comets tail
- A tremendous sun flare
- An asteroid
The first one is easy enough, there is no planetary alignment on Dec 21st 2012, this is what the planets will look like on that date. There is a link on the screen to an online program that you can check for yourself too.
Lets look at Planet X
The idea of Nibiru is traced back to Zecheriah Sitchin and his translations of Sumerian texts.
and specifically to his interpretation of the VA 243 cylinder seal which he says shows that the Sumerians knew of 12 planets (minus the sun and the moon which they considered planets) and as such, this would mean there is another planet.
Sitchin’s interpretation of the seal is wrong. The Sumerians have an unambiguous symbol for the Sun: a circle with four triangles around it like rays, and squiggly lines between the triangles. That is emphatically not the symbol in the seal. The symbol used in the seal is that of a bright star, this symbol for stars is very commonly used, and this is the symbol we have in the seal so even Sitchin’s basic premise is wrong. for details on this and what the seal actually means see Dr. Michael Heiser paper The Myth of a 12th Planet: A Brief Analysis of Cylinder Seal VA 243 available at sitchin is wrong .com
Sitchin claims that the picture shows Uranus, Neptune and Pluto, but since the Sumerians didn’t have telescopes, they could therefore only have known of those planets had aliens told them of their existence. But if aliens told them about those planets, why did they fail to mention the moons of Jupiter and Saturn, or Saturn’s rings? The seal doesn’t show any of these features.
Also note that the Sumerians thought the Moon and Sun were planets, when they aren’t. Certainly aliens would know that the Sun and Moon are not planets! Sitchin is picking and choosing things in the picture to support his arguments and ignoring things that don’t support it like the inscription on the seal itself which has nothing do with his theory. This isn’t science, its fantasy. It’s also wrong. If Sitchin does know about a incoming planet he didn’t learn about it from this seal
Another argument against Planet X and its supposed 3,600 year orbit is the absence of any evidence for it.
For Planet X to be here in less than a decade, it can’t be farther than a billion or so kilometers away. Even at that distance, it would be one of the brightest objects in the sky. Even if it were too faint to be seen with the naked eye, remember, Pluto is 5 billion kilometers out, and although tiny, can be easily detected using modern equipment. Pluto is way smaller than Planet X is supposed to be.
There is simply no way a big planet so close to Earth could have escaped astronomers’ detection– even amateur astronomers.
Some will claim it is because it is hiding behind the sun and that’s why we can’t detect it. If it was behind the sun it would be moving at its fastest point considering its projected orbit and it would only be behind the sun for a very short time.
There are a lot of claims about planet X out there like that observatories are being closed to keep the information from the public which is not true at all, besides that fact that they would need to confiscate every telescope in the world to keep this secret hidden, also there have been postings of pictures and other so called evidence all of which have been shown to be a hoax.
There are actual pole shifts that do occur. Both magnetic pole shifts and physical pole shifts. We are in fact the middle of a long process of a magnetic pole shift, the biggest effect of which is that we will have to realign our compasses in a few hundred years, here is an excerpt from an article from NASA
Reversals take a few thousand years to complete, and during that time-contrary to popular belief-the magnetic field does not vanish. “It just gets more complicated,” says Glatzmaier. Magnetic lines of force near Earth’s surface become twisted and tangled, and magnetic poles pop up in unaccustomed places. A south magnetic pole might emerge over Africa, for instance, or a north pole over Tahiti. Weird. But it’s still a planetary magnetic field, and it still protects us from space radiation and solar storms.
And I might add that it is ridiculous to pinpoint a specific date such as Dec 21 2012 for this happening not just because it’s such a slow process but because the proposed reasons such as galactic alignment aren’t even true thus making it a non issue.
The other kind of pole shift is a physical pole shift.
Lets first set the record straight that this would require an event of tremendous energy and that it is not part of any cycle or natural occurrence and no increasing of solar energy would be enough to cause this.
We have actually had a few degree shift of the poles in the past, but not a reversal by any means. It is what is called a true polar wanderer.
William Sager in an article entitled Texas A&M Oceanographer Challenges Plate Tectonics As Reason For Poles’ Shift says “Our data set indicates that this polar shift took place at a rate between 5 and 10 degrees per million years,” he said. “Essentially it happens within the blink of an eye, in terms of geological time.”
What this is saying is that scientists who call this event fast, call 5-10 million years “fast” and that predicting a specific date for this to happen is ridiculous. As discussed earlier, that that claim the Mayans predicted the event using the understanding of precession fell into the same trap as the galactic center theory couldn’t have any less significance in the shifting of poles because the precession only changes our perception on the sky it doesn’t actually tell us where we are in the sky.
Let’s take a look at what supposedly got this whole thing started the Mayan calendar.
The first question is did the Mayan long count calendar predict the end of the world? No. there is no reference to this idea in Mayan culture; these ideas are imposed by us and not the Mayans.
Even JMJ openly states, ” I do not concur with the Neo-Atlantean pole-shift cataclysmologists on the idea that the world will literally end in 2012. With this distinction in mind, I admit that I still occasionally write, as a shorthand note, “end-date” or “end-date in 2012.” This does not mean that I believe the Maya calendar or the world will end in A.D. 2012.” John Major Jenkins
Often times, video presentations covering these topics, be it a source such as the History Channel, a 2012 YouTube video, or even an internet article will make the jump from the resetting of the calendar to it must mean a major cataclysmic event in a very slick way usually not dwelling on this important transition.
Those that do mention the transition usually cite one of the following reasons to tie it together.
1.) That a Mayan ball game was actually symbolism that told us about galactic alignment
2.) That certain pictorials of the sacred tree also speak of galactic alignment.
While I don’t agree with the logic used to make these connections, and believe them to be farfetched and in most cases frivolous, for the sake of the argument I will say that the Mayans did, for whatever reason choose to end their calendar on this 2012 solstice because of the visual effect of the sun rising in the galactic center on that date.
They fully knew of this effect, which again is only a visual one as viewed from earth. It would only be of local religious or mathematical significance, that is to say if the Mayans believed it was a symbol of rebirth when the sun appeared in the milky way galaxy it would be their prerogative, but it wouldn’t have any galactic merit. It would only make sense from the earth point of view. i would also suggest that this viewpoint of rebirth has undertones which I find disturbing because it seems that we are being taught to believe the same religion using fairly obvious deceptive techniques.
There is also this idea that it that they were able to miraculously determine these events, but it should be noted that western society discovered the precession of the equinoxes at least 100 years BEFORE the Mayans it wasn’t exactly a new concept the calculations to determine these events are not magical, but a matter of mathematics and astronomical observances,
Their culture remained stable for centuries, And they kept
records. So, it is entirely possible for an astronomer to plot the positions of
some stars at midnight, at the equinox, and his grandson to plot the same stars 72
years later and realize that the stars have all shifted one degree in that time.
Multiply by 360, and you get the precession cycle of 26,000 years.
Almost certainly, this is how they did it. Because that’s all it takes.
So were the Mayans predicting the end of the world …definitely not.
‘in fact the entire reason as far as I can tell for this hype is that the Mayans restart their calendar , much like we do on December 31st
on a solstice. which they had the mathematical skill to do fairly easily.
We are the ones responsible for this 2012 fever we have put a lot of words in the Mayans mouths we have thrown pole shifts and planet x and solar flares and everything else into this mix all of which have no connections and not only weren’t suggested by the Mayans it would be impossible to predict any of these things using the any of the methods we are told they used to make such predictions.
I think there could be many reasons why this idea is so actively being promoted to the world I encourage you to draw your own conclusions.
However, while doing the research on this I think finally found why I think it’s being done, the following is my personal view, and it may be extreme if you don’t agree with it I encourage you not to throw the baby out with the bath water, because the 2012 theories are still wrong no matter what, if you don’t want to hear my analysis feel free to shut the video off at this point.
Many 2012 researchers are quick to point out how things will be getting much worse upon the approach to 2012 and we will see many cataclysms
and earth changes on the way to our promised “enlightenment”.
I think that this has to be promoted as much as possible to people so that when they see these kinds of things happening in the next few years, which I agree will happen but for different reasons, everyone will try to endure these things thinking it’s a natural cycle never realizing the obvious fact, which is that The bible clearly prophesied what the days before the return of Jesus and so called birth pangs would look like and even why they were happening and what to do about it. This 2012 thing is both the proverbial carrot on a string which keeps us looking for our “illumination” while simultaneously gives us pride that we know that all these terrible things are a result of “science” thus there is no reason to pay attention to anything else.
I hear a lot of criticism of the bible, I’m not too impressed with most of them, but surprisingly the one that could really have an impact is never used, even by the fiercest critics.
Which is challenging the fact that the bible has never missed in regards to prophecy that is, it is 100% accurate and the Bible itself is full of prophecies almost 25% prophecy at and because of the Septuagint it can be demonstrated easily that it was written before the events it prophesied happened, these are not vague prophecies either, they all talking about specific kingdoms, people, places times, even names. all of which came true.
Considering its track record it should be the most important book on our bookshelf.
The World Age cosmology of the Maya calendar end-date in A.D.2012 and its basis in a rare astronomical alignment of the solstice sun with the Milky Way Galaxy http://www.grahamhancock.com/forum/JenkinsJM2-p1.htm
