Will Hart, Origins of crop plants, Egyptology, Archaeological Cover-ups, Moving the Megaliths, Great Pyramid Shocker,
Extraterrestial Intervention 











  You are here: world-mysteries.com » guest writers » will hart

Strange Artifacts

  Robert Baird
  R. B. Johnson Jr
  Rich Anders
  Richard Leviton
  Will Hart
  David Millo
  Gary A. David
  Anthony P. Perella
  John Neal
  Crichton Miller
  William L. Saylor
  A. Bourmistroff
  Ralph Ellis
  Colin Low
  David Pratt 
  Graeme Kearsley 
  K. Mazan 
  Jonathan Gray 
  Garry Kasparow
  Gilbert de Jong
  Martin Gray
  Gahl Sasson
  Stan Tenen
  Story Waters
  Jim Solley
  Gordon Pipes
  Eugene Savov

Doug Yurchey

Michael Levy

Burke Thomas

Richard Nisbet

Richard Milton

Ed Ziomek

Jennis Strickland

Gary Novak

Joseph Turbeville

Doug Griffin

Daniel Srsa

Frank Dörnenburg

T. Stokes

Lloyd Pye



Will Hart

Guest Writers


Guest Articles by Will Hart

About the Author

Will Hart is a freelance journalist, book author, nature photographer and documentary filmmaker. He has been investigating ancient mysteries and evidence of extraterrestrial intervention on Earth since 1969. He lives in Arizona.

Copyright Information
All articles on this page are
© 2004-2007 by Will Hart.
Reprinted with permission.

Is the 2012 Alignment Theory Correct?
Cosmogenesis in the Age of Aquarius

by Will Hart

Author John Major Jenkins has written a number of books, and articles, about the Maya calendar system including, Tzolkin: Visionary Perspectives and Calendar Studies which reconstructed the Mayan Venus Calendar and the more recent Maya Cosmogenesis: The True Meaning of the Maya Long Count Calendar. The latter is a heavy claim indeed and it is time to examine it in some depth.

In addition to being an independent researcher, author Jenkins has become somewhat of a self-styled expert in the field. His ideas and theories are known widely and taken seriously because he asserts that even though he is not a Maya scholar with academic credentials, he uses a scholarly approach. That is fine with this author I am just stating the facts and not passing judgement on those issues. He has summed up his primary 2012 thesis in a straightforward paragraph:

"The early Maya astronomers who created the Long Count calendar some 2,100 years ago intended the end of the 13- baktun cycle of the Long Count (December 21, 2012) to target the alignment of the December solstice sun with the plane of our Milky Way galaxy.”

His simple statement conceals several controversial assumptions and a very questionable conclusion. Maya scholars do not generally accept his proposal that the Long Count was configured 2,100 years ago. The consensus ascribes the date of August 14, 3114 since the Long Count represents a Sun cycle, a period of 5,125 years.

On the other end his end date, December 21, 2012, agrees with the consensus and that is our central focus. Our main problem is with his conclusion, which categorically asserts that the Long Count targets the alignment of the December solstice sun with the plane of our galaxy and that is its purpose. Does the evidence really point to this deduction? That is the Jenkins core idea and this author questions it. I will argue we must all question it since the Maya calendar and cultural record points to very different ideas and to very different events at the end of the cycle (2012), including a forecast of increasing natural disasters.

Author Jenkins appears to avoid these issues in his writings, lectures and when defending his alignment theory against critics. Yet the Maya clearly stated that the 2012 end date involved two phenomena, i.e., a solar shift, Venus transit and mounting earthquakes, which appear to have largely escaped Jenkins. This is curious because he claims to use due diligence in all his research efforts and to be able to back up his theories with incontrovertible evidence. He has intimated on many occasions that he has found his material in ancient Maya literature. In short, he claims to be an authority on the subject.

In fact, this author does not dispute the 2012 end date, the problem he has with Jenkins theory is that his model appears to leave much important data as well as central features of the calendar system out of the equation. It is well known that the cycles of Venus were a key component of the calendar. In fact, the Maya stated that the Long Count was begun with a ‘birth of Venus’. The Venus Round, a 104-year period was based upon the convergence of the Sacred 260-day cycle, the solar 365-day cycle, and the 584-day synodic periods of Venus.

The 104-year Round was obtained from the mathematical fact that 37,960 days is the smallest number divisible by 260, 365 and 594. However, in spite of these facts Jenkins makes very little out of the cycles of Venus, which the ancients exalted to center stage. He does mention the synodic periods but then inserts the galactic alignment as the centerpiece and the reason the Long Count was created.

The author has not found any reference in his writings to the fact that the transit of Venus occurs in 2012 and it should at least rival any alignment in importance. That is a fact and it certainly supports the generally accepted chronology. Even scholars have failed to link the transit cycle to the calendar system apparently because they do not believe that the ancients knew of the Venus transit.

We must then ask was it just a coincidence that the 2012 end date synchronized with the Venus transit cycle? Claiming this amazing convergence is a coincidence would constitute a very long stretch in light of the fact that the Maya placed such great importance upon the planet.


Even if we accept the theory that 2012 will be the point in time when a cosmic alignment occurs, as Jenkins proposes, we must still question whether that was the principal astronomical cycle that the calendar was set to? We have very good reasons to suspect that it was not; and they have to do with another fact, the Maya used the Long Count calendar to track the cycle of the 4th Sun.

The entire Great Round, a sequence of ages each spanning about 5125 years, which John claims is coincident with and proves they knew of the precession cycle, still involves Solar Ages during which succeeding suns are born and die. But Jenkins appears to downplay these solar transformations (the Maya did not) while exalting his alignment theory above all else.

How does Jenkins construe the focus was on an alignment when the Maya clearly referred to a Solar Age -- in which the cycles of Venus played a central role -- to be the purpose of the calendar?

John must address these issues because his alignment theory is now much more widely known than is the actual Maya model. The second part of his book’s title (“The True Meaning of the Maya Long Count”) flatly states that his is the FINAL ANSWER, an assertion one should always be wary of. His theory is one interpretation of a small part of the data, while excluding the most important predictive and actual components of the calendar. In the process of arguing that the alignment was the main purpose of the calendar and is what 2012 is all about, Jenkins has apparently painted himself into a corner in several respects.

In his zeal to prove his case he downplays the importance of the Solar and Venus transit cycles and the fact that the Maya indicated these were their principal celestial concerns. Every facet of the calendar system relates to the following numbers 13, 26, 52, 91, 104, 364, 891 and 1508. The author has shown in other papers that these numbers are part of a series and all are closely related.

The calendar was based upon “synthetic numbers” that had 13 as the seed number, which were used to carefully measure and track the solar year, the synodic periods of Venus, Mars, and Mercury as well as to tabulate much longer cycles. Nonetheless, the prime cycles were the sacred/solar year, synodic periods, and realigning these with Venus was the real focus of the 104-year Venus Round.

As shown above there is simply no denying that fact that the central idea of the Long Count that the Maya had conceived, was that the sun went through cycles roughly, every 5,200 years. One Sun would end; a new one would emerge. The author has come to take this literally, by that he means that the Maya observed that solar output oscillates over prolonged cycles. That is the core thesis of the Long Count and Great Cycle Round (26,000 years). The only other factor that we know was embedded into the calendar, which was considered of critical importance was the synodic periods and transits of Venus.

Author Jenkins makes the case that it is legitimate to extrapolate from the Maya literature that the Long Count calendar (2012) was focused upon a galactic alignment. He has argued his case and defended his theory quite passionately whenever critics have questioned the data and the deductive methods he uses to reach his conclusions.

Let me add here that John Major Jenkins has taken every opportunity to review, critique and disassemble the theories of other writers including Jose Arguelles, Carl Johan Callehan, Maurice Cottrell & Adrian Gilbert, etc. At the same time, he has always mounted a vigorous defense of his theory. You can search the Internet and find his reviews and exchanges for example with Dr. Strous an astronomer and Callehan, both of whom tried to debunk his alignment theory.

With those facts noted, the author will add that J.M. and I have exchanged emails regarding his ideas at which time I raised the above questions and issues. He essentially dodged them and made what this author considers some strange comments in the process. There simply is no getting around the fact that the Long Count keeps track of a time-span that involves millennia. That span was known as a Sun and during that time the Maya believed ‘old sol’ changed, actually one sun died and another emerged. Hence they conceived that there had been 3 previous solar ages leading up to the 4th Sun.

Jenkins cannot deny that the central focus was upon the sun since he uses the structure of the 5 solar cycles of roughly 5,125 as the basis for his precession argument. But then he shifts the central focus away from the Sun and introduces his cosmic alignment theory in its place. In the process, Venus slips out of the picture as does the Maya prediction that this age, like the previous Suns, would end in a series of disasters.

Now we are to the crux of the issue. Is his claim that the galactic alignment theory represents “The True Meaning of the Long Count Calendar” accurate? My response is a flat no, which does not mean I reject it out of hand. What I reject is the notion, which John is continually reinforcing, that the Maya created the calendar to signify the alignment, that is a gross exaggeration. They would not have referred to the ages as Suns if that were the case.

Neglecting the importance of their actual predictions regarding the sun, earthquakes, and the transit of Venus does not reflect well upon Jenkins theory or deductive methods. At this point, since I have offered him several chances to study my findings and add the above material to his data, I feel compelled to challenge him publicly:

John either acknowledge that you are aware that the actual Maya Long Count calendar was configured to track the course of a Solar Age(s), which included a focus upon the transit of Venus cycle or deny that this true. In addition, publicly debate the issues I have raised in several articles that were published in Atlantis Rising in 2004 that showed: 1) that the Maya predictions of rising earthquakes have been confirmed. 2) The 2004-2012 transits of Venus cannot be ignored as a central factor.

There is no justification for raising the galactic alignment above the Solar cycle, transit of Venus and the natural disasters that accompany them.

From my perspective John M. Jenkins has excluded and/or downplayed the real heart of the Long Count calendar in favor of a vision that resonates with the Age of Aquarius, which was touted in the 1960s. He has recycled ideas that came out of western astrology traditions and mixed them together with Maya cosmology and calendrics. The Aquarian Age was supposed to be just around the corner and it promised a complete, painless spiritual transformation, an upgrade of human consciousness based upon planetary alignments.

We are still waiting; in the meantime massive earthquakes, volcanoes and social changes are sweeping the globe…

Final Note:   To save pointless digressions into minutiae or attempts to deflect the focus away from the key issues, I want to make it clear that I am denigrating John Major Jenkins contribution to our understanding of the Maya culture or calendar. I am also not insinuating that he never mentions Venus or the actual core concepts of the Long Count and Great Cycle. I am saying that he exalts his theory -- and it is an interpretation and not the final solution he claims -- above the established central concepts, the Sun cycle, the transit of Venus, and natural disasters that end the age.

The public needs to be informed about the whole prophecy and not a carefully edited theory that is being presented as the true prophecy. You can go to my web site and freely access the articles that appeared in Atlantis Rising at www.genesisrace.com.

© 2005 by Will Hart

References and Resources

The Genesis Race: Our Extraterrestrial DNA
and the True Origins of the Species
by Will Hart

November 2003
249 pages


About the Author
Will Hart is a journalist, photographer, and filmmaker who has been investigating ancient mysteries and evidence of extraterrestrial intervention on Earth since 1969. He lives in Arizona.

Excerpted from The Genesis Race: Our Extraterrestrial DNA and the True Origins of the Species by Will Hart. Copyright © 2003. Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.
Myths, Legends and Folktales
What is myth? According to the American Heritage Dictionary a myth is: 1. A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental worldview of a people. 2. A fiction or half-truth. 3. A fictitious story, person or thing.

From this widely accepted definitions it is clear that myths are to be distinguished from historical accounts and accurate records. If someone tells you that they are... read more

Book Description
Shows that Earth was visited by an extraterrestrial race who bioengineered modern man in its image and taught man how to construct the pyramids

• Examines the flaws in Darwin's theory of evolution and presents startling new evidence of intelligent intervention • Reveals the messages coded in the pyramids left by the ancients concerning impending Earth changes at the end of the Mayan calendar • 30 b&w photographs

For millennia the development of humanity showed a consistent homogenous pattern. Then suddenly, around 5000 B.C., great civilizations sprang up around the globe. All the creation myths of these civilizations tell of gods who came down to Earth and fashioned man in their own image, teaching them the arts of agriculture and civilized life. In addition, the dominant architectural design in Egypt, Sumeria, Peru, Mexico, and China was the pyramid, though science has never been able to explain why or where these peoples obtained the advanced technological knowledge to construct such edifices. The abruptness and similarities of these evolutionary leaps calls into question the Darwinian theory of evolution, given that there are no traces of any intermediate evolutionary forms.

Now, using the most current research on DNA, Will Hart shows that these gods were actually visitors from other worlds who genetically engineered modern humanity from the beings that then inhabited the planet. He also suggests that the Bible and other creation stories have been interpreted falsely as myth when they should have been read as history. The structures left by our ancestors were designed in accordance with precise astronomical and geodetic alignments to make them visible from outer space and to survive for thousands of years with the intent of communicating information relating to physical and temporal events. Humanity's current stage of development has finally reached the point where the secret messages of these structures can be decoded to reveal the fate of humanity in the coming Earth changes.

Thought provoking alternative history

The author discusses the concept of myth, with reference to Sumeria, Babylon and Troy that turned out to have been real, and the Great Flood, a myth which is found in more than 200 cultures around the world and may be based on events during the end of the last ice age.

He looks at ancient Sumeria, Mexico and Peru and discusses the advanced mathematics of these so-called primitive peoples. Ancient Egypt and Mohenjo Daro are also investigated, as is the sudden appearance of domesticated plants and animals.

The sections on metallurgy, ice ages, cataclysms and the mysterious Civilization X are never less than gripping, as is his discussion of chronological cycles, the Maya calendar and our possible cosmic ancestry.

Hart reaches the same conclusion as Von Daniken and Sitchin: humanity is the result of a genetic cloning experiment by an advanced race that lived among their creatures in ancient times. The Genesis Race provides fascinating reading and those who enjoy this book will also benefit from reading the works of Zecharia Sitchin.

Reviewer from South Africa

Other Related Books





77 Royalty Free images of the ancient Mayan ruins at Chichen Itza (one of the most visited ancient Mayan sites in Mexico). 
Each image on the CD is 9 x 6 inches x 300 dpi -- suitable for printing, multimedia and the web.

   The CD includes BONUS material:

  • 3D Model of the pyramid of Kukulkan (El Castillo) in two popular formats: Rhino and 3D Studio  (also sold separately)

  • 2007 Chichen Itza Calendar (in PDF format)
    This calendar is illustrated with spectacular sepia images  can be easily printed on your own (also sold separately).