2012: Never Before Have So Many Lies Been Concocted About a Random Date
Thursday, July 30, 2009 15:59
It’s nice when Hollywood blockbusters make some attempt to get people excited about ancient civilizations or science, but couldn’t they avoid getting it all utterly wrong at least some of the time? I won’t dwell on it in this post but “Knowing” with Nicholas Cage is one good example where they first tease you with references to quantum mechanics and MIT, only to end with the message that faith in the hereafter - and not scientific inquiry in this life - has any lasting meaning.
Now take this new end of the world film 2012 staring John Cusack who I used to respect as an actor. They are busy exciting people for the movie through the slogan
“Mankind’s earliest civilization warned us this day would come…”
The Mayans were NOT the first civilization. In fact, they weren’t even close. The first clearly Mayan settlements go back to 1800 BC. The first Mayan hieroglyphs didn’t appear until 250 BC. The peak of their large scale architectural programs occurred in the Classical period 250AD - 900 AD.
The 5.9 million tonne Pyramids at Giza are some 800 years older than the oldest Mayan pottery shards. Not to mention the Harappan civilization along the Indus valley (6000BCE), the Sumerian civilization (~400BCE), Minoan (2700BCE) and - oh yes - one of the earliest settled villages in the world at Jericho near the Dead Sea (inhabited since 9,000 BCE). The Mayan might not even be the earliest civilization in the Americas. The Olmecs go back about as far and certainly reached their zenith earlier (around 1200-400BCE).
The film also boasts:
“Never before has a date in history been so significant to so many cultures, so many religions, scientists, and governments.”
I love this response I came across on a random forum:
Actually, Astronomers and scientists don’t say the world will end in 2012. Religious cults and stupid people predicted this. The world isn’t going to end in 2012. Why?
The theory of the world ending in 2012 isn’t true, it’s just a silly hoax. The world isn’t going to end on December 21, 2012, just the Mayan Calendar ends. One of several Mayan calendars is the Long Count calendar, which is reset to day 0 every 1,872,000 days or 7057.5 years. The next reset date, by some calculations, is December 21, 2012. This is not a prediction of the end of the world. The Mayan Calendar has to end sometime.
Somewhat more eloquently phrased and with a greater degree of authority is this short clip from an interview with Neil DeGrasse Tyson who directs the Haydon Planetarium in NYC.
Turns out if you go to December 21 and look at the star charts, its true, the centre of the galaxy, the sun and the earth come into perfect alignment. They will, its true, its true. What the site does not tell you is that that happens every year on December 21st. They left that out of the account
I’m not even sure what they mean by “governments” finding the date important, except maybe if they’re concerned about civil unrest caused by exaggerations and lies like the ones being marketed to advance the film. As to religions, I know little about whether the world’s major faiths have much if anything to say about 2012 but I know there are some who are re-interpreting Hindu sacred texts to find significance for that year. Numerology experts will tell you if you take a large enough body of writing you’ll find just about any number or phrase you care to search for.
This analysis of 2012 in Hinduism included the following, which was interesting:
Now those who are stating that Kali Yuga will end after 5000 years are indicating the beginning of Golden Age in 2012. They are scrupulously using a mix of solar and lunar calendars used by Hindus to suggest that Kali Yuga will end in 2012. [emphasis mine]
Finally, I checked the interfaith calendar for 2012. Among all the usual celebrations and festivals, I didn’t see “End of the World” anywhere. Did I miss it?


















JonA says:
July 30th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
I wouldn’t be so quick to condemn John Cusack or the other actors. They just signed on to a mindless disaster movie whose premise no one, except the marketing department for the movie studio, takes seriously.
The film’s director, Roland Emmerich, has a history of making mindless action films based on various areas of pseudoscience and pseudohistory. Stargate was based on the Chariots of the Gods idea that aliens visited ancient humans. 10,000 BC is based on Graham Hancock’s kooky notion that all ancient civilizations were offshots of a master Atlantean lost civilization. Personally, I see no problem with this. The movies themselves are clearly not to be taken seriously, and are from time to time enjoyable. In fact, I was planning on watching Stargate with some friends tonight.
But I agree with you that the marketing on this film crosses the line, it presents pseudoscience as fact. It is planting false facts into people’s heads and this is clearly not necessary. But keep in mind, the actors and maybe even the director, have nothing to do with marketing slogans placed on posters.
Amanda Peet is one of the co-stars of the movie, and gets huge respects in my book. She has publicly come out against the anti-vaccine lies being spread by other celebrities such as Jenny Mcarthy and Jim Carrey. The fact that she chose to take a role in a clearly fictional film that takes some pseudoscience as a premise is not a problem for me. Pseudoscience and the paranormal belong in fiction, not in the real world.
Fraser H. says:
July 31st, 2009 at 12:44 am
It may just be a gig for the actors, but they would be a whole lot cooler if they chose not to be apart of such obviously stupid projects.
The real fault falls to the audience. Some people take this stuff seriously.
JonA says:
July 31st, 2009 at 10:16 am
Why is this ‘obviously stupid’? Because of the premise? Because of the quality of the movie? If it’s the movie’s quality, you can’t really say yet since there are no reviews and I doubt you’ve seen it.
if it’s the premise then so what? Some of my favourite movies have ridiculous pseudoscientific premises. See Ghostbusters, Stargate, Poltergeist, etc. The only people we should be upset with here are the marketing people.
Fraser H. says:
July 31st, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Want to review it? We could have dueling reviews. Your review with a “it might be good,” tone and mine with a “this is obviously stupid.” Maybe Justin will host it. I bet it’ll be fun.
Lloyd Spindler says:
November 28th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Just to let you know your site looks a little bit weird in Safari on computer with Ubuntu .
Brian Jacquier says:
December 24th, 2009 at 6:03 am
Merely want to say your article is stunning. The lucidity in your post is simply striking and i can take for granted you are an expert on this field. Well with your permission allow me to grab your rss feed to keep up to date with future post. Thanks a million and please keep up the delightful work