Degrance,
rather than argue from memory on something I haven’t really read since I was 19, I obtained a copy of WIC and looked it up. I only focused on the Mayan Calendar so far since I had a pretty good idea how to approach it. The info we have on the Maya comes from the following sources: 1. Diego de Landa. I have his book in my library in storage and haven’t found a copy in any of the bookstores. 2. The 14 codices. Many unpublished. NOT easy to read. 3. Archaeologists. I think it would be fair to say that Michael Coe and Linda Schele are among the most knowledgeable if not THE most knowledgeable on the topic. Without checking de Landa, I think it’s fair to assume that Linda Schele would have mentioned a previous calendar of 360 days in her Maya cosmology book if she had found it or de Landa had mentioned it. She did not.
So I looked at V’s wording. It was fascinating and undoubtedly infuriating to people who know about the Mayan calendar. It is very tricky. If you read it one way, not knowing that it ISN’T accepted fact that there was a 360 day calendar earlier and that 5 days were added later, you would think that this is the mainstream view.
If you read it from the perspective of someone who KNOWS that this isn’t the mainstream view, the way that he quoted it is really hard to pin him down to a worse crime than making a BOLD, UNsupported assertion.
On the basis of those 2 paragraphs alone, I could see people building a case that he did it on purpose to bolster his argument among those who don’t know better. Really tricky. It is also possible it was inadvertent.
Either way, it is a perfect example of what appalled CalMeacham in V’s scholarship, and it IS a valid complaint and frankly the wording is appalling…
Further, if it can be shown definitively that this 365 day calendar was in use AS A 365 day calendar long before V’s reconstruction, then it would prove wrong a big chunk of his work, particularly that the Earth’s yearly cycle was changed I forgot what approximate year, by a near collision of Venus.
I didn’t get a chance to refresh myself on the Mayan Calendar enough, so I forget exactly how the date is formed, particularly the year part of the date. But if I remember correctly, this proof against V can be done by pointing to an inscription that used one of the 5 pictograph symbols for the days that V said was a LATER addition to the calendar. The earlier the date this was used, the stronger the proof.
Phobos,
I don’t really remember. If I dig up the ref. I’ll give it to you.
TomnDeb
Yes, I agree V needs that.
Venk,
In case you didn’t realize what I meant, double blind experiment with control group.
jab
You’re so funny. No need to trap me my friend. Just say what you have to say, I won’t make excuses like the others do…
Anyhow, not really sure what you’re saying? You quote me and then say I conveniently ignored it? My post was the definition of a comet by dictionary.com. They said what comets are THOUGHT to consist of NOT what they MUST consist of as you said.
Either way, I thought your last point was far more convincing. I don’t personally know enough about comets, but I would think that just like V found a comet with a circular orbit, it would be easier to find a comet that doesn’t have ammonia than it would be to find a really HUGE comet. I would think that the size plays an important role since a HUGE planet size object would be more likely to collect all the fragments behind it by it’s gravity rather than form a comet…
In any event, you’re probably used to concessions like Tracer’s where he feels his ego is threatened so while conceding a point he has to make excuses and create bar graphs to boost his manhood, or Doc Fidelius who suddenly is “too busy” as soon as he has to admit a tiny thing.
Not me. I conceded the point about comets and meant it, and as I recall added a wink or a smiley, which was my way to say chalk one up for you. In case it isn’t clearer to you let me do so now, I am convinced that Venus was never a comet. No excuses. No bar graphs.
And I’ll also remind you that I did say previously that V did a lot of stretches and the manna section was one of them and that I didn’t find it that convincing in the first place…
I also mentioned that the only reason that I started to consider Venus again was that in visiting the pyramids in Mexico, seeing the reference to a 360 day calendar (which I couldn’t find again, I looked at a different translation, it wasn’t there, I need the same version of Popul Vuh I originally saw it in), and seeing the way the Mayans described Venus, it seemed to be a fireball in the sky. It obviously wasn’t a comet though, as you have shown.
And RE: ignoring Chichen Itza I wasn’t. I remember those 365 steps and I went up each of them. I remember asking myself the question then but wasn’t sure of the date of it’s creation. A search on the net turned up 1,000 years old. Not old enough to be significant. Note that some of the links on the pyramids are not that reliable so I’ll take the exact date as a grain of salt but I’m pretty confident that it is recent enough to be covered by V’s dates of the “new” calendar… If you can get the exact date that would be great.
Daddy Mack,
As to your question “I’m interested in knowing if you think there are any invalid concepts or crackpot ideas for that matter? What other theories this guy held that you feal have merit?”
That is a good question. Sure, crackpot ideas are a dime a dozen. I’ve already mentioned Hancock, Daniken, Sitchin which should be enough to get you started…
Also, as I’ve stated, there are big problems with V’s book(s). Particularly the stretches and unsupported sweeping generalizations or unsupported assertions. I still think there is validity to some his work and I would love to see his book properly done, as CalMeacham so well said.
Here are the three main things that I consider worthy of study from his book, in 2 different categories:
-
Catasrophism.
In 1950, he pointed out some problems with the concept of Uniformitarianism and suggested catasrophism. Catasrophism is now reality. -
Catasrophism in human recorded history.
He provided a lot of evidence for this and despite the stretches and unscientific way he presented much of it, I think enough of it has merit and deserves to be studied.
For mainstream scientists, his “predictions” were wild ass guesses. To me they were not. If you take away the stretch, the Mayas sure had an obsession with Venus and the motions of the skies. They described Venus in such a way that it sounded like a fireball in the sky. Venus is hot. No matter how wacky it sounds, one supports the other. Thunderbolts of Jupiter. Radio noises from Jupiter. V. mentions eyewitness accounts.
His comet idea was a stretch. He tried to make it sound like you can just do a simple comparative study of different cultures and boom, voila the answer is in front of you plain as day. Or that you can take literally dates in the bible or these extraordinary events like the Manna from heaven. But I do believe that the Bible was an attempt to preserve history and that the noah story which is a version of the Gilgamesh story is an attempt to preserve something that happened. The Gilgamesh story is different enough from the Noah story that you can certainly see that you can’t take it too literally…but not that you shouldn’t consider that SOME of the crazier sounding events might have happened. Planets can change orbits and today’s configuration was most certainly not the same forever back in time…
I believe that scientists are overconfident in their dating methods in various disciplines and that attempting to date things without enough data is a VERY BAD HABIT rampant in science nad yes, V was as guilty as any of explaining things he had no business explaining.
Once a date is established it is taught. Once it is taught it is hard for people to propose alternative dates and require EXTRAORDINARY evidence rather than ORDINARY evidence to overturn an “acccepted” date. I have the same problem with the big bang. We are FAR from having enough evidence to come up with a theory of how the universe began but that didn’t stop us from trying and the big bang is as much religion today as anything else. No one wants to abandon it without an alternative theory but that is wrong. We don’t HAVE to have an alternative theory. Why can’t we just admit that it’s a huge mystery? The concept of the universe beginning doesn’t make sense to us as humans nor does the idea of an always existing universe. It makes no sense and we don’t have enough data to make sense of it…
Anyways, in a separate category, comes an electric universe. I believe that Electromagnetism can be described but it is not particularly well understood, in terms of WHY it does what it does. But it is a lot more powerful than gravity. You don’t even “feel” gravity unless you have a moon sized object and earth sized is of course better. Electromagnetism you see in use everyday on a human scale…
To assume that the motion of the universe is governed by gravity is a HUGE assumption and I think V rightly pointed out that it’s inertia that caused this belief we have today. Had Kepler or Newton known about electricity as we do today, Kepler would probably not have said that the motions of the solar system are caused by gravity and would almost certainly have considered electricity for the task… Give me one good reason to assume that a Galaxy is powered by gravity?
I think V should have stopped there at the criticism. Now going into gravity as I forgot his wording but an effect of electromagnetism, I don’t think he had enough data to really broach the topic. However, I haven’t even read cosmos without gravitation so I can’t even comment on that much…
You can add a number 4 but I don’t remember ages in chaos too well and haven’t looked into egyptology enough… But several archaeologists that I’ve read have admitted that he pointed out some serious problems in chronology of egyptology and despite making many mistakes in his own chronology some felt that he added value to the debate. I don’t know how the average Egyptologist views this, but I have David Rohl’s book in front of me, Pharaohs and Kings and he has an interesting take on it. Centuries of Darkness, by Peter James and Nick Thorpe (and I think there may have been 2 other authors) also give V a certain amount of credit even though they have some critiques for him, as do you and as do I…
Also note, if you accept 1,2 and 3 as potential avenues of research, (which I know you probably won’t), you could argue that V doesn’t deserve the credit for these ideas. And you may be right. But he brought them to my attention and warts and all, he did present certain ideas in a very interesting light…