Materials I would like to contribute

Summary:

Astronomy videos, and some comments on an upcoming 2012 conference

Materials I would like to contribute

Jim Smith (guest) 20 Jun 2010 14:15

Hello,
I e-mailed this site a few days ago to offer some videos, but have not yet received an answer. The videos are serious ones on the astronomy of alignments, and may be seen at

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=CA20FB1DCA9C7DFF.

Members of Bad Astronomy and Universe Today were kind enough to review them for me, and didn't find any errors, other than one or two things I could have worded better:

http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/104749-Set-of-YouTube.com-Videos-Explaining-Astronomy-of-2012?highlight=jim+smith+clearing+up+skies .

I would also like to make available to you some comments on the upcoming 2012 Mayan Prophets Conference, which you can read at http://2012forum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=17535 (Search "Jim Smith").

One of the summary statements I give in those comments is

I think [the three quotes I discuss] pretty well sum up what the 2012 phenomenon is all about:

Explorations of modern-day interpretations of what the Maya might have been referring to when they recorded what they suspected 2100 years ago.

I hope this material is useful.

_{Edit by Astrogeek: fixed up link syntax}

Last edited on 21 Jun 2010 14:39 by Astrogeek Show more

Re: Materials I would like to contribute

bikenbeer2000 20 Jun 2010 21:14

Congratulations on an excellent series of videos. It must have taken a considerable time to produce. Like your other reviewers, I can find no fault with it. When answering questions on this topic, I sometimes point out that a mathematical line (the line of solstices) crossing a mathematical plane (the galactic plane) in 1998 is an event of absolutely zero physical importance.
Whilst John Major Jenkins is at least not a member of the apocalyptic brigade, he does tie himself up in knots trying to claim that there is something special about 2012 when in reality there is nothing.
You may recall that there was a Prophets Conference in Cancun, Mexico in January 2010. These people must have greatly enjoyed talking about subjects with little or no connection with reality in order to arrange another one in July in Vancouver. Maybe they are going to milk this for all it's worth with regular pointless gatherings until 2012, when the whole sorry rabble will finally be discredited.
Some of your links don't seem to work. Try these:
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=CA20FB1DCA9C7DFF
http://2012forum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=17535

Re: Materials I would like to contribute

Astrogeek 21 Jun 2010 17:15

Hi Jim;

I get the email destined for the site, but I didn't recall seeing yours, but found it when I went searching for it. I apologize for the delay in responding.

Your videos are very useful… as an amateur astronomer I sometimes forget how much of this a non-astronomer doesn't know. I'll be updating various "Alignment" pages with links to your playlist. Thank you.

I'm not quite sure where to put the comments about the Maya Prophets conference, other than under the 'Profits of Doom' page. Its amazing that someone can get to go to these various vacation spots worldwide simply by making up stuff about the Maya.

---

"Do you ever think about things you do think about?" - Henry Drummond to Matthew Harrison Brady in Inherit the Wind

Re: Materials I would like to contribute

Jim Smith (guest) 21 Jun 2010 02:24

Thanks for viewing the videos. I wish I had the skills to make ones as nice as those made by 2012 proponents!

Regarding the "Prophets", their website for the upcoming conference in Vancouver is worth a look:

http://www.greatmystery.org/events/vancouver2012.html.

Two things stand out on that page. One is that the "Prophets" are all over the map regarding what will happen. The other is that John Major Jenkins has already backpedaled to a nice, safe position for when the 2012 phenomenon flops:

"2012 is definitely not just about one day in 2012; it is about a sea change that probably won’t bear fruit for many decades. But I believe that 2012 could be seen by future historians as a temporal marker of a great renaissance that will raise a submerged continent of consciousness that has been suppressed by Western science and culture." —John Major Jenkins

I'm hoping that the Prophets get discredited as long as possible before 2012. The more absurdities they put in the mouths of the ancient Maya, the greater the chance of a backlash against the modern Maya. That's of considerable concern to me because I live in a Maya region of Chiapas, Mexico, where I volunteer in programs to improve the teaching of math and science. Like most people in rural Mexico and Guatemala, the modern Maya are having a very hard time. Many people here would gladly run them off their lands, so the Maya need sustained, effective international support. They can't afford to have it jeopardized by the 2012 crowd.

Re: Materials I would like to contribute

TheGreatJuju 21 Jun 2010 13:37

Jim, I enjoyed your videos. I hope you can attract some viewers with those. YouTube needs every injection of sanity it can get.

---

"They tell you, but do you believe it? If so, why?"

http://www.undeadrufus.com

Re: Materials I would like to contribute

Jim Smith (guest) 09 Jul 2010 22:28

Hello,

I've put a new video on YouTube citing John Major Jenkins' own account of his drug use while he was writing Maya Cosmogenesis 2012:

Mushroom Cosmogenesis 2012
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeeyqHlbkT4

The video is essentially a summary of the following web page:

Jenkins and the Energy Vampires
http://www.2012hoax.org/energy-vampires

Hope this is useful.

Video on astronomy of Pinchbeck's "2012: The Return of Quetzalcoatl"

Jim Smith (guest) 04 Aug 2010 00:04

Hello,

I just finished uploading a video rebutting the astronomy of Daniel Pinchbeck's 2012: The Return of Quetzalcoatl. I'll appreciate any comments and corrections.

The video also talks about the 2012 Tipping Point Prophets, who tapped Pinchbeck as moderator for their recent conference in Vancouver. I point out that I had offered to send the Prophets the rebuttal of Pinchbeck's astronomy many times in the preceding month, and that (predictably) the prophets showed no interest whatsoever.

Re: Video on astronomy of Pinchbeck's "2012: The Return of Quetzalcoatl"

Alene Y 04 Aug 2010 02:49

I liked it. A lot of the kids may not understand what you're showing. A summary slide showing all those solstice Sun positions within the marked area of the "dark rift" might help to put it all in perspective.

Re: Video on astronomy of Pinchbeck's "2012: The Return of Quetzalcoatl"

Jim Smith (guest) 04 Aug 2010 19:05

Thanks for the suggestion. I might look for someone who could do that summary slide with Starry Night.

I did this video as supporting material for an article I plan to submit about The Prophets Conference. One point I've made to tourists where I live (Chiapas, Mexico) is that the famous Maya ruins were the "Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous" of that world and time: a combination of Beverly Hills, the Vatican, and inside-the-beltway Washington, D.C. They weren't places for the likes of us, any more than the castles of England and Germany were for my swineherd ancestors.

Instead, those places were for an elite who claimed (in the case of the Maya) to have knowledge from beings who scorned to communicate with poor slobs like us who were out hoeing corn in the hot sun. Much like the faculty of The Prophets Conference. One of the points I intend to make (and document) is that The Prophets are an elite who debate their "knowledge" only when, as, and with whom they choose, and (usually) only on subjects of their choosing. (E.g., when John Major Jenkins is confronted on his astronomy, he often insists upon changing the subject to the Maya/Izapans.)

I'm no prophet myself, but I think that point will get the attention of some 2012 devotees.

By the way, I'm the Jim Smith who made the post near the end of the thread linked above. If you have any comments on that post, I'd be happy to hear them. Especially since I plan to do a video along the lines of the "fourth question".

Re: Video on astronomy of Pinchbeck's "2012: The Return of Quetzalcoatl"

bikenbeer2000 10 Aug 2010 23:45

Hi Jim

Sorry for taking a while to get back to you.

Again, I can find nothing factually wrong with your video. However, I was wondering why your rectangle enclosing the locations of the Sun is shown on a relatively small scale. Are you just trying to indicate that the year-to-year change in the Sun's position is relatively slight compared with the size of the Dark Rift?
Also I was wondering about your choice of years. Is there any particular significance in them?
I ran a simulation using Starry Night software and found that in 1973* the Sun was in a virtually identical location with respect to the stars as in 2012. Is it worth highlighting something like that in order to make the point that 2012 is not unusual?

*39 sidereal years are only a couple of minutes short of 14,245 mean solar days, which is 39 calendar years, provided there are 10 leap years in the interval.

Re: Video on astronomy of Pinchbeck's "2012: The Return of Quetzalcoatl"

Jim Smith (guest) 11 Aug 2010 01:33

Thanks, bikenbeer.

I was wondering why your rectangle enclosing the locations of the Sun is shown on a relatively small scale. Are you just trying to indicate that the year-to-year change in the Sun's position is relatively slight compared with the size of the Dark Rift?

If I understand you correctly, yes, that is what I was trying to do. Since I don't know how to make Sky Charts give really nice images of the Milky Way (images with a narrower field of view are even less "nice"), I chose years for which the sun was unquestionably within the Dark Rift, and used the rectangle to make obvious the relatively small change in the Sun's position.

I ran a simulation using Starry Night software and found that in 1973 the Sun was in a virtually identical location with respect to the stars as in 2012. Is it worth highlighting something like that in order to make the point that 2012 is not unusual?

That sure would be worth highlighting! Looking back over my notes, it seems that I never checked out 1973. Unfortunate.

I don't have any explanation for that oversight.

Thanks again.