Keith M. Hunter
Now indeed, as the era thought to be targeted by the Maya is essentially upon this present generation, one is able to state with exacting authority just how accurately the Maya target end-date of 21 December 2012 synchronises with the actual physical-celestial configuration itself. And even to provide some sort of estimate as to how long the Maya judged the full length of one precessional cycle to be.
In a clear statement as to the accuracy of the Mayan forecast, modern
astronomers of the present age have determined that the noted galactic
alignment in question does not in fact occur in the year 2012 AD at all.
But rather, that the alignment has in fact already occurred, and did so
in the year 1998. One may cite in particular the observations of the
famous astronomer Jean Meeus, who determined that the galactic crossover
occurred to its optimum level in the month of May of 1998 .
In view of this clear observation that the galactic alignment has
already happened, one can say then in estimate that the Maya were some
14 years in error over a 2500 year time period in their forecast of the
event. An error to this level implies that the Maya would have misjudged
the time taken to complete one full precessional cycle by about 2
degrees of angular measure.
Now indeed, this is quite a significant error. It is akin to
someone observing the earth orbit for the duration of a few weeks, and
based upon the angular sweep of that period as determined, extrapolating
to work out the time taken for a complete (tropical) year, and arriving
at a value for the length of the year that is about 2 full days in
Interestingly, it is a known fact based upon observation that the angular ‘passage’ of precession is certainly not uniform, but is accelerating ever so slightly over time. Moreover, some scientists view the phenomenon of precession to be due to the sun being in a binary system with another star , with the sun itself engaged in a slight elliptical orbit about its binary companion. The reality of this implies then that the acceleration of the angular sweep of precession (per year) is governed by an elliptical mathematical function. Given the truth of this, one may thus suggest that the error of the Maya as to the length of a full precessional cycle may be the result of falsely assuming that precessional motion was perfectly uniform, as would be in line with the previously noted Copernican Model of the heavens.
Accepting the singular purpose of the Long Count to synchronise 13 Baktuns with the noted galactic alignment, then based upon the mechanics of the calendar itself in conjunction with the observed non-uniformity of precession, it would appear that the accuracy of the Long Count is far from exceptional. And for such an intended purpose it would seem to be quite unspectacular and rather basic.
Indeed, in view of these noted points, one would have to draw attention to the most notable failure of the calendar system itself per se: the fact that no essential corrections were made over time to maintain the harmony between the completion of 13 Baktuns and the future solstice galactic alignment. Now indeed, one may contrast this with the great calendar reform of the Roman Catholic Church in 1582 to correct the Julian calendar by some 10 days, in order to re-synchronise Easter with the seasons. Scholars who have examined the Long Count have noted that it was tracked quite accurately at least up until the Spanish conquest, after which time it ceased to be in use . One is looking therefore at a continuous period of use of at least about 2000 years; an unbroken count over this time, but apparently with no periodic corrections being made.
One can only conclude therefore that if no actual corrections were made over a full 2000 year period, then in all likelihood, since the establishment of the Long Count circa 500 BC, no further observations of the angular passage of precession were made up until it ceased to be tracked. In essence then, the Maya may have gone through a sort of ‘Dark Age’ in much the same way as with the Old World in terms of their astronomical models/calendar systems, but without any rigorous overhaul.
They established a fixed calendar system in deep antiquity to track a particular celestial event to completion, and then over the passage of time as the event approached ever nearer, for some reason, they never subjected their calendar to any periodic corrections; not since the time of its inception. And for this reason, a sizable error of some 14 years built up over time; the now realised error of the Long Count Mayan calendar with respect to the galactic alignment configuration.
Proceed to Part 8:
 One may cite in particular the very well known scholar Gordon Brotherston, author of The Book of the Fourth World.
 Meeus, Jean (1997), Mathematical Astronomy Morsels, page 302.
 See: http://www.binaryresearchinstitute.org/
 To quote John M Jenkins: “…the fact is that the Long Count tradition was lost shortly after the Conquest. Yes, that's correct, the Mayan people stopped following the Long Count; its katuns and baktuns were forgotten,” taken from his website at the following URL: http://alignment2012.com/eldersand2012.html