2012: Why the Creation Cycles do not end December 21, 2012, but October 28, 2011
Over the decades much discussion has focussed on finding the exact correlation between the Mayan Long Count and the Gregorian calendar. Most researchers in the field have now come to agree that the so-called GMT correlation, placing the beginning of the Long Count 4 Ahau 8 Cumku on the Julian day 584 283, August 11, 3114 BC, is correct. This means by consequence that it will end on December 21, 2012 and most, such as Jose Arguelles, John Jenkins and Terence McKenna, who have taken an interest in the calendar of the Maya, have endorsed this date as the end of the current cycle.
Mayan Calendar: Why the Creation Cycles do not end December 21, 2012, but October 28, 2011
By Carl Johan Calleman
Over the decades much discussion has focussed on finding the exact correlation between the Mayan Long Count and the Gregorian calendar. Most researchers in the field have now come to agree that the so-called GMT correlation, placing the beginning of the Long Count 4 Ahau 8 Cumku on the Julian day 584 283, August 11, 3114 BC, is correct. This means by consequence that it will end on December 21, 2012 and most, such as Jose Arguelles, John Jenkins and Terence McKenna, who have taken an interest in the calendar of the Maya, have endorsed this date as the end of the current cycle.
I do not dispute that the GMT correlation for the Long Count with the Gregorian calendar is the correct one. And clearly, the Long Count is an approximately (within a year or so) correct reflection of the divine process of creation. There are however strong reasons to believe that the Mayan Long Count itself does not reflect the shifting energies of the divine creation cycles that we today are interested in exactly. What in this regard is most compelling is that the exact Long Count beginning date ultimately is calibrated based on the date of solar zenith in Izapa, which occurs on August 12. (Izapa is the ancient Mayan site in southern Mexico where the Long Count was first devised.)
This solar zenith day was since long, long before the Long Count was implemented, considered as the day of the year when �time began� and considered as a holy date in the location of Izapa. There is thus every reason to believe that the solar zenith was the reason the initial day in the Long Count, 4 Ahau 8 Cumku, was set on this day, although obviously the date of solar zenith in Izapa has nothing to do with the real beginning of the corresponding divine creation cycle. (But to change this date would have been considered as heresy. We may make the comparison with the date of Christmas, which was taken from old solstice celebrations, and has not been changed, despite the fact that few, if any, believes that Jesus was born then).
The end date of the Long Count falls on December 21, 2012 is thus just a necessary logical consequence of the beginning date chosen by the Izapans and not something that the Maya had intentionally targeted. The creation cycles described by the Maya, including the tzolkin, are fundamentally of a spiritual, non-astronomical, nature. Thus, any theory that implies that the Mayan Long Count would have been designed to reflect astronomical phenomena, be it the precession of the earth or a solar zenith, is a warning signal that its originator is off the mark. It should be obvious that if the Mayan calendar is a prophetic calendar describing cosmic energy cycles of a universal nature then the particular date at which the sun was in zenith in the particular location of Izapa is totally irrelevant for us who live today and must be considered as nothing but a result of a tradition too strong to be changed.
Another equally compelling reason why December 21, 2012 cannot be the true date of completion of creation is that this day is 4 Ahau in the tzolkin count. Since the Long Count consists of exactly 7200 tzolkin rounds then the true end of creation must fall on a day that is 13 Ahau in the tzolkin count so that the tzolkin rounds even out. If we want to find out what is the real date of ending of the creation cycles we must therefore look for a day around the year 2012, which is 13 Ahau in the tzolkin count. The inscriptions in Palenque, written about a thousand years later than the Long Count was devised in Izapa, seem to indicate that the date of relevance is October 28, 2011, which in fact is 13 Ahau in the tzolkin count.
The issue of the exact correlation between the creation cycles and physical time may not have been as critical in the age of the Maya as it is to us, since creation is currently operating at a 400 times higher frequency. A discrepancy of a year or so may have meant less earlier than it does to us who live today. If we make a mistake of 420 days in calibrating the end date of the creation cycles we will be totally out of phase with the rapidly evolving Galactic Creation Cycle where the Yin/Yang dualities in the cosmos are switched off and on every 360 days. These energy changes are what a spiritual calendar should reflect if it is to serve humanity in its current phase of evolution.
It should be said also that those who propose December 21, 2012 as an end date, such as Terence McKenna and John Jenkins, are basing their entire interpretations of the Mayan calendar on this particular date of ending, as if this was what the entire calendar was about. I feel however that what is most important for us to know today is the processes leading up to the completion of creation and the attainment of Cosmic Consciousness. This process is driven forward by the roller-coaster-like Galactic Creation Cycle, and for those seeking to understand this process and its many manifestations an exact calibration of this cycle is imperative. This is now available in calendar form.
Corrected durations of the Thirteen Heavens baktuns of the Long Count
Baktun no����(Corrected) Duration
1...............................3115-2721 BC
2...............................2721-2326
3...............................2326-1932
4...............................1932-1538
5...............................1538-1144
6...............................1144-749
7...............................749-355
8...............................355-AD 40
9...............................AD 40-434
10.............................434-829
11.............................829-1223
12.............................1223-1617
13.............................1617-2011
Friday, September 5, 2008
Chemtrails: on the trail of our assassins
Celia and Bill Abram, retired public school teachers, have been watching chemtrails since late 1998. A former meteorological observer with the Canadian Dept. of Transportation, Bill Abram knew early on that the chemtrails did not match his observations of cirrus or alto stratus or 'mare's tails' or anything else. It was chemtrails, not contrails, that was obscuring the sky. As a matter of fact, that's what the US government (and NATO) calls it. Not officially, of course, because it doesn't exist. That's why most of the public doesn't see them or rationalizes them away. They still trust 'their' government: They are under the sway of the ersatz collective cognitive imperative (to paraphrase Julian Jaynes). Celia and Bill Abram have been watching our double crossed skies for nearly a decade now. Celia identifies the trance state this way, "They never noticed it, haven't a clue what it is, and really aren't that alarmed when we tell them." As Celia points out, our only hope is to induce some cog dis in the trance states of Canada, the U.S., Europe, Australia...
MUST SEE!!!!!! The Death Of The Internet
The Internet as you know it is about to change. The corporations and the major governments want to stop the current Internet because it gives the people too much power. It makes the people aware of the illusions they create in order to control us. The Internet as we know it is waking people up to tyrannies everywhere and the powers that be do not want this. They want to keep you dumb and isolated. They want to destroy free speech. Speak up. Research the web. Write to your ISP's and to your government to enforce net neutrality. Wake up before people fall back asleep for generations to come. Do something!!!
The Ultimate Chemtrials Proof - You can not deny this...
This video is impossible to deny
google HR 2977
The bill was later revised to exclude the term "chemtrails". If chemtrails do not exist then why mention something that doesn't exist in the first place
Ultimate HAARP Proof - Warning Hurricane Ike,Hanna,Josephine,Nana,Gustav Beware! Weather Modification NWO - Illuminati
Spread this...
So it seems this s HAARP at work - over 5 Hurricanes at once is not normal...Give me a break.
Weather Modification is proven in this video, we need to stop them before they do something they cant even control. The world could be split in half! If something isnt done...
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Solution For Global Warming: Poison The Air, Cut Down Trees
| Solution For Global Warming: Poison The Air, Cut Down Trees |
|
| |
Climate change alarmists have never been apt to shy away from courting controversy with their dire forecasts of coming environmental apocalypse, but their latest "solution" takes the biscuit - they want to pollute the air with sulphur and cut down pristine beautiful old growth forests to stop global warming!
No you didn't read that wrong - scientists really are proposing to obliterate majestic canopies of forest that are hundreds of years old while pumping the upper atmosphere full of an acid-rain causing pollutant, changing the very color of our serene blue skies, all in the name of saving the environment.
"Australian scientist Tim Flannery has proposed a radical solution to climate change which may change the colour of the sky," reports The Age.
"Professor Flannery said climate change was happening so quickly that mankind might need to pump sulphur into the atmosphere to survive. The gas sulphur could be inserted into the earth's stratosphere to keep out the sun's rays and slow global warming, a process called global dimming."
(Article continues below)
Flannery says the process of adding sulphur to jet fuel in aero planes needs to happen within 5 years, but admits, "The consequences of doing that are unknown."
Oh yeah sure - makes perfect sense! We don't know what the actual consequences will be but let's just start dumping a compound that causes "substantial damage to the natural environment" into the atmosphere willy nilly in order to save the environment!
After all, New Scientist tells us that acid rain reduces global warming so why not accept a little environmental degradation in order to.....save the environment!
We can also look forward to enjoying the following goodies should Flannery's proposal gain support, all of which are associated with exposure to sulphur.
- Neurological effects and behavioral changes
- Disturbance of blood circulation
- Heart damage
- Effects on eyes and eyesight
- Reproductive failure
- Damage to immune systems
- Stomach and gastrointestinal disorder
- Damage to liver and kidney functions
- Hearing defects
- Disturbance of the hormonal metabolism
- Dermatological effects
- Suffocation and lung embolism
As we reported last month, Government scientists have already been experimenting with the feasibility of bombarding the Earth's upper atmosphere with microscopic glass particles to dampen the effects of "global warming," despite warnings that the process could damage the ozone layer.
Goodbye blue sky? Scientists propose mass spraying of sulphur despite admitting "the consequences are unknown".
But that's not enough. According to climate alarmists, to save the planet we also need to rip out its lungs - old growth forests.
Since trees absorb carbon dioxide - that evil gas that we breathe - but then begin to give it off as they age, why not just cut down all the trees and turn the planet into one big landfill? That's effectively what atmospheric scientist Ning Zeng recently told New Scientist magazine, urging the process of "thinning forests and burying "excess wood" in a manner in which its didn't decay could sequester enough carbon to offset all of our fossil-fuel emissions."
"Over its lifetime, a tree shifts from being a vacuum cleaner for atmospheric carbon to an emitter. A tree absorbs roughly 1,500 pounds of CO2 in its first 55 years. After that, its growth slows, and it takes in less carbon. Left untouched, it ultimately rots or burns and all that CO2 gets released," reports Wired Magazine.
Oh the horror! More trees, plants and crops growing and feeding the world due to increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere! We can't have that can we!
The solution: "Clear the oldest trees and then take out dead trunks and branches to prevent fires; landfill the scrap."
And you can trust the government and global corporations to re-plant fresh trees and not use the land to build a new multiplex cinema or a shopping arcade. Seriously, just trust them.
Wait a minute, I thought humans were responsible for CO2 emissions? No - now trees are evil and we must get rid of them. Obviously God got it wrong.
Global warming is a phenomenon that has not been observed since 1998 and will probably not be observed for the next 10 years, according to scientists who are being forced to respond to evidence of global cooling, but who assure us the deadly menace of man-made climate change will return.
Al Gore and his sycophants are proposing that to fight a non-existent problem, we must effectively poison and rape the earth in order to help save the earth.
In light of this contradiction, it's necessary to question who are the real environmental threats to the planet? People driving SUV's that emit the natural, life giving gas, the very thing we exhale, and the food that trees and plants crave, CO2 - or the folks that want to have airliners dump vast quantities of poison on us while ripping out the world's most precious and ancient woodland forests?
---Geoengineering: The radical ideas to combat global warming
Artificial clouds and creating colossal blooms of oceanic algae are among the ideas scientists say must now be considered
- guardian.co.uk,
- Monday September 01 2008 09:54 BST
- Article history
Artificial clouds to reflect away sunlight, creating colossal blooms of oceanic algae and the global use of synthetic carbon-neutral transport fuels are just three of the climate transforming technologies in need of urgent investigation, according to leading scientists. The eminent group argue that, with governments failing to grasp the urgent need for measures to combat dangerous climate change, radical – and possibly dangerous – solutions must now be seriously considered.
The idea of engineering on a planetary scale in a bid to control climate has been around for more than 50 years but, to date, has remained on the fringes. The potential for dramatic and beneficial change has hitherto been outweighed by the risk of unexpected side-effects in the complex climate system, with global consequences. Now, in a special edition of the journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, climate scientists and engineers have brought together the latest research and issued a call for a far-reaching assessment of a raft of geoengineering techniques.
"We are now, or soon will be, confronting issues of whether, when and how to engineer a climate that is more to our liking," argues Ken Caldeira, a leading climate scientist based at the Carnegie Institution in Stanford, California. If a decision is made to move ahead with climate engineering, he says, then it will be essential to understand the point at which the risks and costs of geoengineering outweigh the impacts of global warming.
Not everyone is so unequivocally positive, however, including Stephen Schneider of Stanford University. In an overall assessment of the geoengineering challenge, he notes that critics ask whether it is socially feasible to expect the many centuries of international political stability and co-operation that would be needed to operate global scale schemes. He adds that the potential also exists for conflicts between nations if geoengineering projects go wrong.
Air
Some of the most extreme ideas for climate engineering involve reducing the sunlight falling on the Earth's surface, as a way to offset the increase in temperatures caused by greenhouse gas emissions. Caldeira calculates that reflecting just 2% of the Sun's light from the right places on Earth (mainly the Arctic) would be enough to counteract the warming effect from a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
One approach is to insert "scatterers" into the stratosphere. Caldeira cites an idea to deploy jumbo jets into the upper atmosphere and deposit clouds of tiny particles there, such as sulphur dioxide. Dispersing around 1m tonnes of sulphur dioxide per year across 10m square kilometres of the atmosphere would be enough to reflect away sufficient amounts of sunlight.
In a separate study, Stephen Salter of the University of Edinburgh proposes building 300-tonne ships that could spray micrometre-sized drops of seawater into the air under stratocumulus clouds. "The method is not intended to make new clouds. It will just make existing clouds whiter," he wrote. The ships would drag turbines in their wake, which would provide the power needed to spray the water.
Ocean
The growth of marine algae and other phytoplankton captures vast quantities of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, but growth is often limited by a lack of essential nutrients. Adding such nutrients, such as iron or nitrates, to stimulate growth was studied by a team led by Richard Lampitt of the National Oceanography Centre in Southampton. The organisms incorporate atmospheric CO2 as they grow and, when they die, sink to the bottom of the ocean, taking the carbon with them.
Lampitt argues for a large-scale experiments of an area of ocean measuring 100km by 100km and monitored by an independent team of scientists. "Once this research has been carried out, it will be the responsibility of the science community to perform appropriate cost-benefit-risk analyses in order to inform policy."
However, there is at present a moratorium around the world on iron-seeding experiments. "The idea is unpopular with the public because it is perceived as meddling with nature," writes Victor Smetacek of the Alfred Wegener Institute in Germany and Wajih Naqvi of the National Institute of Oceanography in India. But they say rejecting seeding is premature as there have been no experiments to date that fully test the concept and the counter-arguments are based on worst-case scenarios.
Transport
More a fifth of the world's human-induced emissions of carbon dioxide come from transport. While technical fixes for these emissions might not count as geoengineering by the strictest definition, their global effect means they can be considered alongside other options to reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere. In the long term, experts believe people should be driving electric or hydrogen-fueled cars but those technologies will take too long to arrive for Frank Zeman of Columbia University and David Keith of the University of Calgary.
They propose the development of synthetic fuels called carbon-neutral hydrocarbons (CNHC) as a near-term alternative to petrol and diesel. Made by reacting together carbon dioxide and hydrogen, these fuels can be used in cars without the need for major modification of either vehicles or infrastructure. More importantly, burning them would not contribute to global warming, provided the component ingredients have been manufactured in a carbon-neutral way. The CO2 could come directly from the air, from plants or else from coal-fired power stations using carbon capture and storage technology (CCS). The latter method could also reduce the potential problems of the planned worldwide increase in the number of fossil-fuel power stations. The International Energy Agency predicts the world's use of power will increase by 50% by 2030, with 77% of that coming from fossil fuels; CCS holds the promise of preventing up to 90% of the carbon emissions from a power station escaping into the atmosphere.
Wild Card
Other ideas considered by scientists, though not in the papers published today, include scrubbing carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere. Klaus Lackner of Columbia University has designed a machine that could, if built to full scale, take up the CO2 emissions of 15,000 cars. With around 250,000 such machines, it would be possible to remove as much CO2 from the atmosphere as the world is currently pumping into it. The gas could then be stored underground or used in a manufacturing process.
An idea further into the realms of the fantastic involves using shiny spacecraft to block sunlight. Scientists have suggested launching a constellation of free-flying craft that would sit between the Sun and Earth forming a cylindrical cloud around half the Earth's diameter and 10 times longer. "Approximately 10% of the sunlight passing through the 60,000 mile length of the cloud, pointing lengthwise between the Earth and the Sun would be diverted away from the Earth, which would uniformly reduce sunlight over the planet by approximately 2%," writes Stephen Schneider of Stanford University. The cost would be a dazzling $100bn (£55.5bn) a year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
