John Major Jenkins’ “Astrocrud” and the 2012 Mayan Mythology

I found the site “Astrocrud” recently.  Unfortunately, it is poorly designed, so that I cannot directly link to a lot of the things on it for all of you.  Though dated (2006) I wanted to share the author’s criticisms of John Major Jenkins’ astronomical theorizing. Jenkins, of course, is at ground zero of the Maya 2012 nonsense.  Below is the content of the site on this point. If you want to see what else Astrocrud critiques, visit the link.

——–

(These comments refer to content in Jenkins’s web pages as at 2006 February 13.)
(John Major) Jenkins, in various pages on his web site, has attempted to refute criticism, from here and elsewhere, of his astrocrud. I am not going to attempt to go into detail with respect to all of his attempted refutations. Some are based on Mayan history which I am incompetent to comment upon; there are so many that they almost qualify as a complex question fallacy and, to quote them all would mean quoting such a high proportion of Jenkins’s web site that it would be way beyond what is permitted by Fair Use clauses of copyright legislation (which I prefer to abide by, even if Jenkins — by quoting, in full and without permission, my private correspondence to him — evidently does not).

Technorati Tags: , , ,

University of Chicago Analysis: Archaic Mark is a Forgery

Looks like Stephen Carlson was right.[Carlson has also charged that a text known as "Secret Mark" is a forgery - see here.] From this article:

The Divinity School’s Margaret M. Mitchell, together with experts in micro-chemical analysis and medieval bookmaking, has concluded that one of the University Library’s most enigmatic possessions is a forgery.

Technorati Tags: ,