The Morningstarr*

timey · 20-05-2008, 22:49

Am I right with the Mayan date though? And am I close?

Mr Morningstarr* · 20-05-2008, 22:53

Yes you got the Mayan date right, it's very close.

timey · 20-05-2008, 23:00

Well, I'm confused, because the date 12.19.13.6.7 is 3rd June 2006. I wasn't sure if I was on the right track but that date has the Tzolkin date 3 Manik and the Haab date 0 Zotz. When I saw those numbers and symbols I thought that must be it - it's too much of a coincidence.

However, it could be on the old system, which was two days out. Is it the 5th June?

Mr Morningstarr* · 20-05-2008, 23:03

Well, unless these half-wits have munched it up.

It should be the sixth of the sixth 2006. The site's launch date.

timey · 20-05-2008, 23:07

OK, I wondered about that. It's supposed to be something to do with 6/6/6, the sign of the devil. But according to my sources it should be either the 5th or the 3rd. Anyway, I was close.

P.S. Not sure what the 9 at the end signifies.

Mr Morningstarr* · 20-05-2008, 23:09

Ah, the age of the moon was 9 days.

That's what my certificate says.

When I get in from work tomorrow I'll scan all the literature in so you can read it yourself. It'll probably make more sense to you anyway!

timey · 20-05-2008, 23:49

Ah, that would right. The moon was just past first quarter at that time. Yeah, I'll look forward to reading it.

Mr Morningstarr* · 23-05-2008, 22:59

OK, here are the scans I promised you.

timey · 24-05-2008, 06:48

OK, I'm gonna print them off and read them.

Thanks, BTW. Interesting stuff.

timey · 24-05-2008, 07:08

BTW, as I said before, there seems to be some variation in the way the dates correlate to ours. My diary for 2004, for instance, has Dec 31st as being 12.19.11.16.6, 2 Cimi 9 Kankin. In the 2005 diary, however, it has become 12.19.11.16.8, 4 Lamat 11 Kankin, a difference of two days.

This is explained as follows:

Quote:

Scholarly consensus now seems to be around the dating that starts the current cycle on 11 August -3113 Gregorians, and it appears that the Mayan elders have accepted this. This diary has accordingly changed over to this corrrelation, advancing the dates by two days. It means that 13.0.0.0.0, the start of the next cycle, will fall on 21 December 2012 CE, the day of the northern winter solstice. The change of cycle is reputed to denote the destruction of the universe, and the creation of a new one.

All of which is total bollocks of course. Basically they "tinkered" with it to get the dates to align with the 2012 winter solstice, which has no significance whatsoever to the Mayan calendar, no matter what many people will try to tell you. There are many theories about what will happen, including the fact that the Earth's polar plane will line up with the centre of the galaxy. As someone interested in astronomy I can confirm that this is poppycock.

Anyway, the upshot of this is that the date in the inscription now correlates to 3rd June 2006, which is what it states in my diary. Even so, using the old system, it would have been 5th June 2006, so there still seems to be some variation on the correlation system from one place to the next. I think really no-one is certain how the system worked or what it was meant to signify, if anything other than just a way of marking time.