The Osiris Numbers

SPECIAL NOTE: The author was grateful many years ago to find an original copy of this work published as The Osiris Numbers on the now-defunct Speedy deletion Wiki after it was rejected by Wikipedia. The sting of that rejection has never left him because he thought at the time that this “discovery” would rock the world. Instead, Wikipedia’s editors referred to the text below as “astrological nonsense.” What made that condemnation so perplexing was a footnote on Wikipedia’s Astrological age article at that time that referenced “Billy Meier, contactee of the Plejaren Federation and founder of FIGU.” 

Over a decade has passed since this information was submitted to Wikipedia. Not a word has been changed. Not even the author’s choice of emphasis has been altered, only the formatting updated and a few gross misspellings corrected. The author cherishes this text too much to alter it for vanity’s sake. He was in such a rush to submit this work to Wikipedia, the “FIX AND FINISH” notes at the bottom of the page were part of the original submission.


||||||||||||||||||||||||||| EVERYTHING BELOW THIS LINE IS HISTORICAL |||||||||||||||||||


Rudely Rejected by Wikipedia

Until now, I have not sought a wider audience after having my early work on the Maya Long Count and cycles of destruction rudely rejected by Wikipedia. Imagine that, I discovered the true unit of measurement for the Maya Long Count is orbits of Jupiter, making available to the masses for the first time in thousands of years a precise knowledge of the end time, knowledge that has been kept secret for untold generations, and the geniuses at Wikipedia dismissed it as “astrological nonsense.” That level of ignorance is so profound that I have since wondered if they simply did not want this information published. Their barring of any mention of Dr. Judy Wood is very telling.


The phrase whole orbit synchronicity is borrowed from “Jupiter’s Dance,” written by Gray Stevens:

Which brings me to the long count, the 5125.257 year Mayan calendar, ending according to archaeologists around December 21st 2012, the culmination of the fifth period of a larger 25526.3 [sic] year calendar. Troubling is the Mayan assertion that this period coincides with a new Sun and the end of the world as we know it by earthquake.

This would be easy to brush aside as ancient myth until one realises [sic] that the 25526.3 [sic] cycle which the Mayans so elaborately designed can be divided by the 177.925 year sunspot cycle exactly 144 times. A sort of Hitchhiker’s Guide To The Universe moment.

The 5125.257 year cycle also contains whole orbit synchronicity between Mars (.015 orbit difference) Jupiter (.084) Saturn (.01) Uranus (.003). Bit of a coincidence then. Imagine, all those planets arriving back in the same orbital positions after a lapse of 25626 years and that being in accord with Mayan calendrics and prophecy.”[1]

The “hitchhiker’s guide to the universe moment” is the focus of this article. It suggests not only that the ancients were cognizant of the 178.7 year solar cycle only recently (re)discovered by Paul D. Jose in 1964, but used it as a basic unit of measurement in the design of both the Mayan Long Count calendar and Zodiac.

However, there are three serious errors in the equation 25526.3 ÷ 177.925 = 144. The first is that the answer is not 144, but 143.4666291976957. This appears to be the result of the second error. The Mayan Long Count calendar is not 25526.3 years in duration. As shown in detail below, the actual duration of the Mayan Long Count calendar, if by that is meant a Mayan date of, is 25626.8 years.1 This appears to be little more than a typo (but one that has existed since the article was first written) because the correct number is given in the second paragraph and if 25626 is substituted for 25526 in the above equation yields the desired answer of 144.026977659126. The third serious error is that the Jose solar cycle is 178.7 years, not the stated 177.925 years.[2][3] Why is Stevens fudging this number in order to get the desired result of 144? He knows full well that the Jose solar cycle is 178.7 years because he references it in his paper entitled “Synodic Cycles of Jupiter and the other planets of the Solar System” (accessed from his main page through the “Final Waltz” link):

“The earlier work by P D Jose (1) on a 178.7 year solar activity cycle, and I Charvatova (2) regarding a 2402 year solar activity cycle, showed long term periodicity in the Sun’s movement around the Solar System Barycentre and related cold and warm climate periods.”[4]

So why substitute 177.925 for 178.7? This question is of dire importance. If using 25626.8 as the duration of the Mayan Long Count calendar, 178.7 does not yield the desired result of 144, but anything below 177.96 does. Getting this equation right is the key to unlocking the mystery of how the Mayan Long Count calendar and the Zodiac are mathematically related. It is discussed in the next section on The Importance of Jovian Math.

Though the equation is imperfect, Stevens comes so very close to a new, revolutionary truth; the design of the Mayan Long Count calendar and the Zodiac share the same, heretofore unknown basic unit of measurement, which is the 178.7 year solar cycleAs discussed below, both systems also arguably represent the same period of 25626.8 years. In the process of showing how the 178.7 year solar cycle was known to the ancients, entirely new meanings are assigned to the sacred numbers 108, 144, 2160, and 432. Volumes have been written on this subject, but no one apparently understands the actual significance of these numbers which occur so often in ancient texts.


The Osiris Numbers

The following excerpt is from Chapter 31, “The Osiris Numbers” of Graham Hancock’s “Fingerprints of the Gods:”

“Archaeo-astronomer Jane B. Sellers…studied Egyptology at the University of Chicago’s Oriental Institute…

It is Sellers’s contention, eloquently expressed in her recent book, The Death of Gods in Ancient Egypt, that the Osiris myth may have been deliberately encoded with a group of key numbers that are ‘excess baggage’ as far as the narrative is concerned…

…in general, as Sellers observes, ‘phrases are used which prompt simple mental calculations and an attention to numbers’.

Santillana and von Dechend, Jane Sellers and a growing body of other scholars rule out chance, arguing that the persistence of detail is indicative of a guiding hand.

If they are wrong, we need to find some other explanation for how such specific and inter-related numbers…could by accident have got themselves so widely imprinted on human culture.

But suppose they are not wrong? Suppose that a guiding hand really was at work behind the scenes?

Sometimes, when you slip into Santillana’s and von Dechend’s world of myth and mystery, you can almost feel the influence of that hand…”

Here is a complete list the Osiris Numbers:

12, 30, 36, 54, 72, 108, 360, 432, 2160

Everyone of these numbers can be found in the design of the Mayan Long Count calendar.


25920 is a Modern Fiction

The number 2160 is given for the duration of an astrological age in countless articles, webpages, and books, always leading to the conclusion that the Zodiac represents a period of 25,920 years (or 12 x 2160). Yet the number 25,920 is not found in ancient texts, and the current NASA estimate for axial precession is 25,800 years. In short, 25,920 is a modern invention with no significance to the ancients, and there is no scientific reason to believe it has any modern, astronomical significance either.

Here it is interesting to note that the article on Astrological Ages includes the following citation as evidence that the Zodiac represents a period of 25,920 years:

Billy Meier’s Contact Report 9, sentence № 186.

The main page of this website is entitled “The Future Of Mankind” and begins with this paragraph:

“Welcome to the Future Of Mankind, the largest English-language resource for information primarily produced by Billy Meier, contactee of the Plejaren Federation and founder of FIGU.”[5]

FIGU is “a German acronym that stands for Free Community of Interests for the Border and Spiritual Sciences and Ufological Studies.”[6] Sentence № 186 from the above reference is quoted here:

“The origin of this epochal change is in the radiation effect of the huge central sun around which your system circles once in 25,860 years and passes through 12 epochs within the meaning of your astrologer’s Zodiacs.”

Not only is the source of this citation highly questionable, it references the number 25,860, which is substantially different from the number 25,920 it is supposed to support (not a multiple of 2160).


2160 (Jupiter)

The high order digit of the Mayan Long Count calendar is the Baktun, which represents 144,000 days. The actual duration of the Mayan Long Count calendar is five 13 Baktun cycles or 5 x (13 x 144,000) days, which is equal to 9,360,000 days. If we divide that by the duration of Jupiter’s orbit, we get the following:

9,360,000 ÷ 4,332.59 = 2160.370586646786

This can be done using years also. There are 365.242 days in a year, which means the duration of five 13 Baktun cycles is 9,360,000 / 365.242 = 25626.84466737122 years. If that number is divided by Jupiter’s orbit in years, we get the following:

25626.84466737122 ÷ 11.8618 = 2160.451589756295

Stated simply, there are 2160 orbits of Jupiter in one Mayan Long Count calendar. This makes for a very strong argument that Plato′s number is in fact 216.


The Importance of Jovian Math

Gray Stevens was immeasurably close to solving this problem. He knows that the are 15 orbits of Jupiter in one 178.7 year solar cycle.

Jupiter orbits the Sun exactly 15 times in 178 years…[7]

But then he attempts to arrive at 144 by using solar years. This doesn’t work. Using either days (178.7 × 365.242 = 65268.7454) or years yields the exact same result.

9,360,000 ÷ 65268.7454 = 143.4070770418087

25626.84466737122 ÷ 178.7 = 143.4070770418087

There is something of a chasm that separates The Mayan Long Count calendar from the Zodiac. On the other side of this chasm, is the number 144 which connects the two systems through the 178.7 year solar cycle. But the chasm cannot be crossed without using Jovian math. This is what apparently stopped Gray Stevens. What is missing? The answer is 2160. We must think as the ancients did.

If the unit of measurement for the entire Mayan Long Count calendar is Jupiter orbits, the question that needs asking is why would one change to days or years? Stated differently, how likely is it that the ancients—looking out at the stars—computed a 187.7 year solar cycle instead one consisting of 15 orbits of Jupiter? The obvious answer is that it is highly unlikely that after designing a calendar based on Jupiter orbits, which they can plainly see in the night sky, that they would then compute a solar cycle based on the movement of the earth around the sun.

Using Jovian math solves the problem. In Jovian math, everything is expressed in Jupiter orbits instead of tropical or sidereal (solar) years. Thus instead of expressing the duration of the Mayan Long Count calendar as 9,360,000 days or 25626.84466737122 years, the number 2160 is used instead. Jovian math is the key that unlocks the mystery of how the Mayan Long Count calendar and the Zodiac are mathematically related.

There are in fact 15 Jupiter orbits in one 178.7 year solar cycle.

178.7 ÷ 11.8618 = 15.06516717530223

Using Jovian math, the problem can now be solved.

2160 ÷ 15 = 144

The importance of this equation to understanding the ancients cannot be understated. For as will be shown in the next section, it directly links the Mayan Long Count calendar and the Zodiac.


12, 30 and 360 (The Zodiac)

The Zodiac is a collection of 12 constellations known since antiquity, each of which is more or less centered on the ecliptic and occupies approximately 30° of that 360° imaginary circle in the night sky. This is a duodecimal system of 12 constellations projected against the background of 12 30° segments of a circle.

If each house of the Zodiac represents 12 178.7 year solar cycles, then there are 12 × 12 = 144 178.7 solar cycles in the Zodiac. This is the same number of 178.7 year solar cycles in Mayan Long Count calendar.

This means each house of the Zodiac represents

9,360,000 ÷ 12 = 780,000 days or

780,000 ÷ 365.242 = 2135.570388947602 years

Now of course the Zodiac equals the Mayan Long Count calendar:

2135.570388947602 × 12 = 25626.84466737122

It is tempting to multiply 178.7 × 12, but we did not get here using the year value of the 178.7 year solar cycle, and using it now would be a mistake for the same reason.

Is 144 178.7 year solar cycles in the Mayan Long Count calendar and the fact that the Zodiac is a duodecimal system sufficient enough to make this leap? If not, the next section does provide sufficient reason.


432 (Venus)

Of all the Osiris Numbers, 432 is perhaps the most mysterious. It is generally thought to a 2 × 2160, or the time it takes for axial precession to progress through two constellations of the Zodiac, but this is counter-intuitive. Why would 60° of the Zodiac be so special? Before discussing an alternative interpretation of this Osiris Number, here is only part of what Hancock says about 432:

The Osiris myth is not the only one to incorporate the calculus for precession. The relevant numbers keep surfacing in various forms, multiples and combinations, all over the ancient world.

An example was given in Chapter Thirty-three—the Norse myth of the 432,000 fighters who sallied forth from Valhalla to do battle with ‘the Wolf’. A glance back at that myth shows that it contains several permutations of ‘precessional numbers’.

Likewise, as we saw in Chapter Twenty-four, ancient Chinese traditions referring to a universal cataclysm were said to have been written down in a great text consisting of precisely 4320 volumes.

Thousands of miles away, is it a coincidence that the Babylonian historian Berossus (third century BC) ascribed a total reign of 432,000 years to the mythical kings who ruled the land of Sumer before the flood? And is it likewise a coincidence that this same Berossus ascribed 2,160,000 years to the period ‘between creation and universal catastrophe’?

Do the myths of ancient Amerindian peoples like the Maya also contain or enable us to compute numbers such as 72, 2160, 4320, etc. We shall probably never know, thanks to the conquistadores and zealous friars who destroyed the traditional heritage of Central America and left us so little to work with. What we can say, however, is that the relevant numbers do turn up, in relative profusion, in the Mayan Long Count calendar.

Details of that calendar were given in Chapter Twenty-one. The numerals necessary for calculating precession are found there in these formulae: 1 Katun = 7200 days; 1 Tun = 360 days; 2 Tuns = 720 days; 5 Baktuns = 720,000 days; 5 Katuns = 36,000 days; 6 Katuns = 43,200 days; 6 Tuns = 2160 days; 15 Katuns = 2,160,000 days.[8]

The Mayan Long Count calendar is divided into five 13 Baktun cycles. Likewise, Venus divides the Zodiac into five.

Venus produces a beautiful, almost perfect, five-pointed star pattern in the heavens every eight years. When one star is complete, another one is formed, and another one.

Now look what happens if you use Jovian math to divide the Mayan Long Count calendar into five:

2160 ÷ 5 = 432

If the division of the Mayan Long Count calendar into fifths mirrors the movement of Venus within the imaginary circle of the Zodiac, then there are 432 orbits of Jupiter in each fifth of the Zodiac.



36, 54, 72, and 108 (Other Fractions)

The sacred number 108 is half of 216, and thus represents one half of the Mayan Long Count calendar. In the section on A New Understanding of the Zodiac, it is shown that the design of Mayan Long Count calendar and the Zodiac are closely related and share a common duration of 25626.8 years. Thus, 108 can be thought of as representing one half of the Zodiac also, the significance of which is a change in the pole star from Polaris to Vega or vice versa.[10]



Hancock is convinced the Osiris Numbers are intended to convey a message about the Precession of the Equinoxes. He can be wrong about the interpretation of some of the Osiris Numbers and still be right about this. If the Mayan Long Count Calendar is regarded as the internal mechanism of an ancient celestial clock, and it can be shown through a different interpretation of the Osiris Numbers that the Zodiac is the storytelling face of this ancient time piece, then it becomes possible that the Precession of the Equinoxes is 25,626.8 years.

FIX AND FINISH——–[NASA and axial precession increase in speed]

the duration of the Platonic Year (expressed here as whole orbit synchronicity) and of the Great Year (or the Precession of the Equinox) are one and the same and that both are precisely equal to the duration of the Mayan Long Count calendar. Even the notion that the point of reference (i.e. axial precession) and the objects observed (i.e. the planets) can be somehow be separated and still have a Great Return is absurd.


FIX AND FINISH——–If this is true, the implications are unsettling. It turns the entire ancient world topsy-turvy. How likely is it that the ancient Egyptians, like Plato, borrowed their knowledge of axial procession and other astrological data from the Olmecs (or their predecessors), and that Mexico was the center of the ancient intellectual world?

“The Surya Siddhanta is the oldest surviving astronomical text in the Indian tradition. Some Western scholars date it to perhaps the fifth or sixth centuries A. D., though the next itself claims to represent a tradition much, much older. It explains that the earth is shaped like a ball, and states that at the very opposite side of the planet from India is a great city where the sun is rising at the same time it sets in India. In this city, the Surya Siddhanta claims, lives a race of siddhas, or advanced spiritual adepts. If you trace the globe of the earth around to the exact opposite side of India, you’ll find Mexico. Is it possible that the ancient Indians were well aware of the great sages/astronomers of Central America many centuries before Columbus discovered America?- the Mayans or Incas.”[11]

Here is what Graham Hancock has to say on this subject:

“Whoever it was, they must have been smart—smart enough to have observed the infinitesimal creep of precessional motion along the ecliptic and to have calculated its rate at a value uncannily close to that obtained by today’s advanced technology.”

It therefore follows that we are talking about highly civilized people. Indeed, we are talking about people who deserve to be called scientists. They must, moreover, have lived in extremely remote antiquity because we can be certain that the creation and dissemination of the common heritage of precessional myths on both sides of the Atlantic did not take place in historic times. On the contrary the evidence suggests that all these myths were ‘tottering with age’ when what we call history began about 5000 years ago.”[12]



1. The distinction between the Mayan date and the end of the Mayan Long Count calendar is important. There is significant evidence for arguing that the Mayan Long Count calendar actually ended on December 16, 2013, not December 21, 2012. In this article, for the sake of simplicity, the duration of the Mayan Long Count calendar is expressed as (13 in the high order digit), not the date, which corresponds to December 16, 2013 and is thought to be the actual end date of the Mayan Long Count calendar.



  1. Stevens, Gray. Jupiter’s Dance. Retrieved on 30 December 2013.
  2. Jose, Paul D. (Revised 29 September 1964). “Sun’s Motion and Sunspots” The Astronomical Journal 70 (3): 193–200. Retrieved 30 December 2013.
  3. Charvátová, I. (Revised 14 January 2000). “Can origin of the 2400-year cycle of solar activity be caused by solar inertial motion?”Annales Geophysicae AS CR 18 (4): 399–405. Retrieved 2012.
  4. Stevens, Gray. Synodic Cycles of Jupiter and the other planets of the Solar System. Retrieved on 1 January 2014.
  5. Meier, Billy. The Future of Mankind. Retrieved on 31 December 2013.
  6. Meier, Billy. About FIGU. Retrieved on 31 December 2013.
  7. Stevens, Gray. Jupiter’s Dance. Retrieved on 31 December 2013.
  8. Hancock, Graham (1995). Fingerprints of the Gods. Three Rivers Press. p. 260. ISBN 0-517-88729-0.
  9. Guttman, Arielle. Venus Star Rising. Retrieved on 2 January 2014.
  10. Wikipedia. Retrieved on 31 December 2013.
  11. Knapp, Stephen. 108: The Significance of the Number. Retrieved on 2 January 2014.
  12. Hancock, Graham (1995). Fingerprints of The Gods. Three Rivers Press. p. 267. ISBN 0-517-88729-0.