Maya Chronology and Halley's Comet Revisited - LexiLine Journal 407

I had a question from a reader about my work on Maya Chronology on whether they were based on some Codex. See http://www.lexiline.com/lexiline/lexi75.htm

Here is the answer that I wrote:

My calculations are not based on any Codex.
The mainstreamers can read the raw data as such and need no help with that.

However, their astronomical interpretations of the numbers are faulty since their cardinal dates are wrong.

What I am saying is the entire Maya chronology is off by ca. 819 days in terms of the start of the calendar. As I write on my website LexiLine:

"Often in Maya dating of the so-called Supplementary Series, the so-called IS (Initial Series date) is preceded by a notation of 819 days. This notation of 819 days is thought by Maya scholars to be merely a magical multiple of 13, 9 and 7, which equals 819. But as shown here for the first time, these 819 days are the intercalation for the tropical year. This intercalation was apparently made at Tikal, Guatemala on January 25, 293 (Julian date 1828100) and used in the Supplementary Series of dates."

Hence, 4 Ahau 8 Cumku is not some meaningless August date in 3114 B.C. but rather December 25, 3117 B.C (Julian date 583297), when a Solar Eclipse took place at the Winter Solstice - and this is the reason that the calendar started then. The interpretation that 4 Ahau 8 Cumku is in August in 3114 B.C. as Julian day number 584,283 can be traced back to so-called Maya "scholars" not only actively hindering Knorosow's correct Maya decipherment work, but also having no clue about calendration. 

A proper appreciation of IS 819 also proves clearly that Merida is not November 14, 1539 A.D. but rather correctly Julian date 2283535 as the expected Solstice date of December 25, 1539 AD.

It is then similarly clear as I have written at LexiLine concerning Halley's Comet and its observation by the Maya:

"The current Maya chronology includes a spectacular event called the Entrada of 378, for the arrival at Tikal of a lord called Siayaj K'ak' (meaning and translated "Fire Born" by the Mayanologists), dated to January 31, 378 by the Mayanologists.

At the same time, the "king" Chak Tok Ich'aak allegedly passed away on January 15, 378 (8.17.1.4.12) - whose name means "Great Burning Claw". This Entrada (Entrance) of Siyaj K'ak' took place on January 31, 378 according to mainstream Mayanology - indeed, the appearance of this mysterious "fire born" is documented 8 days earlier and his "route" is even traced in Maya records.

Now - if this were a HEAVENLY BODY it would be a fiery comet - AND it is a comet, Halley's Comet, which came very close to earth in what the serious astronomers today estimate to be 374 A.D. According to MY chronology, the Maya date January 31, 378 is correctly May 4, 375 A.D. and this is the Maya record of the sighting of this very near passage of Halley's Comet, one of the closest to Earth on record.

We find Halley returns at ca. 76-year multiples in the names of Maya "rulers".... though all the mainstream dates are off by the error of 2+years in mainstream chronology which I have discussed above.

Halley is the Accession of K'an Chitam in 458 A.D. - actually, this was 2+ years earlier. Ruler "Bird Claw?" - also known as "Animal Skull I" - this is Halley again - is dated by Mayanologists to between ca. 527 and 537 A.D.

Ca. 76- years we then have Halley again as Animal Skull II.

Halley appears again as the illustrious king Yich'aak K'ak' (Fiery Claw) whose "flint and shield" are brought down by Jasaw Chan K'awiil I on (sic) August 5, 695 A.D. - but of course this is 2+ years earlier in fact.

So, Halley has been clearly identified, and mainstream Maya chronology is off by the period of time I have previously described in great detail in other LexiLine postings."

Why has this not been recognized in Mayan Studies? 

Note that this has nothing to do with studying things like the Dresden Codex. The dates I use are standard and come from Simon Martin's and Nikolai Grube's "Chronicle of the Maya Kings and Queens".

It has to do with setting your cardinal dates correctly, and that has not been done

.