Response II to Mardyks
previous response here

May 2008
John Major Jenkins

Raymond Mardyks believes I am unwilling to answer his questions. I've had a page on my website since 1998 or so ( that addressed some of his comments. I had removed it and all links to it many years ago, but it must have been restored to the server from backup files after some server meltdowns around 2003. It has been hanging as an unlinked page since then. It's probably best to leave it in place since it sometimes generates healthy debate and commentary. For example, Ray asserts that his book of the mid-1990s did include a reference to the authentic daycount, which is true but his emphasized daycount followed the Arguelles Dreamspell system. He also asserts that his book was the first to provide the authemtic daycount, which is not true. Barbara Tedlock's Time and the Highland Maya did (1985), and my 1992 book Tzolkin: Visionary Perspectives and Calendar Studies, reprinted by Borderlands in 1994, provided dozens of calendar pages and calculation methods. That is the book that broke the case on the correlation issue and framed the importance of following the True Count. No false modesty necessary here. My work to defend the authentic tzolkin daycount was tireless in the early 1990s, and here we have an example of Ray attempting to claim accomplishments and efforts that I pioneered. His book ascribed to the Arguellian runnel while nodding to the True Count - an indication of progress in the markeplace of ideas that was demanded by my efforts.

So, I have responded in detail to his questions in the past, but his questions are often layered very thickly with angry vitriol, accusation, and slanderous assumptions. I've tried to parse out some questions in the jumble of words below and will, once again, address his questions.

The first set of questions can be pieced together from Mardyks' stream-of-consciousness series of sentence fragments below (in red):

we'll show you one:

JMJ intuits galactic alignment; actual event involves 13 equinoxes & solstices 1998-2001: how does it relate to 2012? ... yet to be revealed. not the one.

JMJ intuits Sun conjunct Pleiades / Chichen Itza / zenith connection ... cool ... in 2012 ? uhhh, no. the Sun when conjunct passes over the zenith of CI every year for decades and not a big deal ...

got a planetarium program ? go back to 999 ... Quetzalcoatle "reactivates" CI ... check declination of the Pleiades (tail of the Snake) at that time ... 20°N40' ... DIRECTLY on the zenith there, plus other astrological factors ...

check out the classic peak period ... Pleiades DIRECTLY over Tikal, Palenque, etc.

interesting yes, but OLD NEWS, like black & white TVs. galactic alignment ... old news.

what's up NOW? and in 2012 ?????????????????????

wanna play ?

His first question is an old one, one that I've responded to hundreds of times. My definition of the galactic alignment is based on the 1/2-degree diameter of the sun and the precise calculation of the solstice point's alignment with the galactic equator (May of 1998) made by Jean Meeus in his 1997 book Mathematical Astronomy Morsels. A clear fact-based definition of the galactic alignment is: the alignment of the December solstice sun with the galactic equator. (Note: I published this definition in my 1995 book The Center of Mayan Time.) Since the sun has 1/2-degree width, we need to allow a 36-year minimum window (precessional motion equals approximately 1 degree in 72 years). Thus, 1998 +/- 18 years = 1980 - 2016. Elementary. The galactic alignment "happens" within the alignment zone 1980 - 2016, and never - not even in my early elucidations of the phenomenon - have I promoted the idea that it happens precisely and only on December 21, 2012. That's merely what the media and underinformed critics do with my work - not really that surprising.

This definition serves as a framework by which we can understand what the ancient Maya had accomplished in making a forward calculation to the galactic alignment, some 2,100 years ago. The 13-Baktun cycle ending date is an artifact of an ancient calendar and an ancient astronomical knowledge. That it falls within the prescribed 36-year window is impressive. My argument for intentionality on the part of the ancient Maya in placing their 13-Baktun cycle-ending date on December 21, 2012 does not, however, rely on this accuracy. Instead, it demonstrates how the astronomical features involved in the galactic alignment - the dark rift, the solstice sun, the cross formed by the Milky Way and the ecliptic - are essential players in core Maya institutions, including the Popol Vuh Creation Myth, the sacred ballgame, and king-making rites. Furthermore, my archaeoastronomical investigation of the site called Izapa - the chief site of the culture that was involved in the formulation of the Long Count calendar - provides iconographic and mythological statements that encode the galactic alignment of era-2012.

Mardyks imputes incorrect assumptions about my work and believes, as I pointed out in Appendix 1 of my book Maya Cosmogenesis 2012, in making an astrological distinction between the precise calculated alignment of 1998 and astrological events believed to transpire in 2012. This is well and fine, and follows his astrological inclinations. My interest is in reconstructing the ancient cosmology associated with 2012, including its astronomical reference (i.e., the galactic alignment) as well as the ballgame mystery play, the spiritual teachings, and the prophecy associated with it. It is common for modern thinkers to assume the Maya were targetting something specific to 11:11 a.m., December 21, 2012; but as I've said for many years, this is unrealistic. The alignment that concerned them, however, and how they emdedded it into a profound World Age doctrine of human transformation, should arouse the interest and attention of rational seekers.

The reason why I resist responding, once again, to Mardyks' venemous attacks, is because the answer to his first question, which I laid out once again, above, is found in the prominent link on my home page called What is the Galactic Alignment? It's right there. Thus, although pretending to be apprised of my work enough to pass judgment on it, he apparently is not and seems more interested in sucking away my time and energy than in understanding my approach and the pioneering nature of my work to reconstruct the cosmology and wisdom of the people who invented the Long Count calendar. This is a phenomenon known as energy parasitism, or energy vampirism, which has been discussed brilliantly in the writings of Jonathan Zap.

His second question involves my reconstruction of a sun-Pleiades-zenith alignment over the latitude of Chichen Itza. This alignment, as I stated in my book Maya Cosmogensis 2012, happens not in one specific year, nor could it even be nailed down with certainty to a specific decade; instead, as I stated in my book, it is best thought of as happening throughout the 21st century. This reconstruction, like my work on the cosmology of the 13-Baktun cycle-ending date, is pioneering and unprecedented, and helps us understand the concepts underlying the New Fire ceremony and the eschatological ideation within the Calendar Round tradition. As I show in my book, the Calendar Round and New Fire Ceremony were used, much like the Long Count and the Hero Twin/ballgame myth, to track the precession of the equinoxes. Chichen Itza then looms as the place of integration of two different precesion-based eschatologies, both agreeing that the 21st century of the Christian era would bode great change and trasnformation - a "World Age shift." And neither of these cosmologies has anything to do with the "Age of Aquarius" that western astrologers tend to emphasize. Some western astrologers indulge in a big jumbly conflation of Western astrological ideas and Maya ideas. More on my reconstruction of the sun-Pleiades-zenith alignment is found in my chapter summaries here:

Ray's hard-to-decipher abbreviations referring to the Pleiades passing through the zenith lead me to believe that he misunderstands the precessional shifting that defines the sun-Pleiades-zenith alignment. I provided "Space-Time Maps of the Sun and Pleaides in the Zenith" in Appendix 4 of Maya Cosmogensis 2012, showing the alignment's movement northward from Copan in the 7th century AD to Chichen Itza in the 21st century AD. And there at Chichen, it is the symbolism of the Pyramid of Kukulcan that indicts a conscious knowledge of the process for those who built that structure in the mid-ninth-century AD. The Pyramid of Kukulcan was thus constructed to be a precessional star-clock in stone, pointing to an alignment that would not culminate over its zenith for another 1,200 years. It is apparently this unprecedented reconstruction that Mardyks dismisses as "no big deal" and "old news." Claim to prior knowledge without demonstrating proof is an old trick of usurpers. In fact, there was no demonstration of even understanding what he claimed to be old news.

Another question was unearthed in the followed non-sequiters:

Ray's Question: ... so the decision to remove my
> lineage from the
> History chapter was an editorial one ? was it BHC's ?
> some of my
> material has been used in her most recent book ... and yes, no credit
> ... the same story as with ALL the B&Co authors ...
> smells like a
> conspiracy ... actually I'm very glad to not be
> directly associated with
> that whole crew.

Ray refers to his "lineage" and my removal of it from Appendix 1 of my book. I don't know anything about his "lineage." Nothing of substance regarding his work was removed. In fact, I mentioned Ray's work along with all the other researchers that I was aware of at the time. He is referring to the editing out of extraneous details, which was necessary during the publishing process and occurred throughout the book. That appendix was intended to summarize previous work on the galactic alignment done by other researchers, and he is in there. Most authors would never even bother to make this gesture of inclusion and acknowledgment. As I've stated before, Ray's work is astrologically-oriented and somewhere in our correspondence he stated that 2012 doesn't even have a connection with the galactic alignment. Or perhaps he is adding astrological nuances (ones involving details I doubt the Maya could have been aware of, but may have some meaning for modern astrologers). Again, this is fine, but is very different in approach from my pioneering interdisciplinary reconstruction. The key that I've pioneered is showing how the astronomy involved in the galactic alignment was encoded by the Maya into their Creation Myth, their ballgame, their king-making rites, and on the monuments of Izapa. Furthermore, I elucidated the presence of an ancient galactic cosmovision that embraced mythology, ritual, shamanism, prophecy and spiritual teachings intended for cycle endings. Showing conscious intent and decoding the whole picture - that's where the revolution in understanding the galactic cosmology of the ancient Maya occurs.

More questions were spewn haphazardly:

... let's discuss ... where did you get the "dark rift" idea ? ... is it Schele? ... the idea that it is a birth canal ? ... that the bulge is a womb? .. did these come from others or your own "enhanced" visionary experiences ?

The dark rift identification as a birth canal does not come from Schele. It is based on my interdisciplinary investigation of the dark rift's conceptual, iconographic, mythological, and hieroglyphic associations, all of which were cited and discussed in Maya Cosmogenesis 2012. More recent confirmation has come from Ruud van Akkeren's work, published in the Copan Notes #73 ( and his book The Place of the Lord's Daughter.

... if these images or "projections" genuinely serve you and the awakening of humanity, then I genuinely apologize ...

Since the dark-rift as a birth canal does accentuate the interpretation of the galactic alignment as a time of transformation, renewal, awakening, and rebirth (most dramatically illustrated on Izapa Stela 11 and the throne on the west end of the ballcourt at Izapa), rather than a fear-mongering doomsday scenario, this imagery does indeed serve and encourage an awakening of humanity. So, apology accepted. Other apparent questions are too scattered and heavily mixed with toxic anger and vitriol to parse out and respond to.

Thank you, Ray, for offering information about the galactic plane and alignments to it that were apparently noted by Charles Jayne decades ago. This helps us understand how the awareness of seasonal quarter (equinox or solstice) alignments to the plane of the galaxy was introduced into modern discussions. It's amazing that it took so many decades for his information to be elucidated clearly and expanded upon by those who knew him. I was not aware of Charles Jayne until you mentioned him, so I welcome him entering the discussion. I came to this information through different channels - Hamlet's Mill and Terence & Dennis McKenna's Invisible Landscape as I have previously stated. Jayne's work should be added to the "History of an Idea" appendix in Maya Cosmogenesis 2012, along with other echoes of the solstice-galaxy precessional paradigm that are found in W. B. Yeats, William Blake, J. J. Bachofen (1869), Edgar Conrow (1920s), and certain Middle- and Neo-Platonic philosophers (Numenius, Porphyry, Macrobius).

back to