Just a point on this line, "Pinchbeck not only ignores recognized Maya scholars, but repeatedly implies that there is validity to remarks by authors such as Hancock, Arguelles, Calleman, and Jenkins. He also relies upon a trademark literary device of pseudoscientists: The provocative question. An example (p. 245) is his use and followup of a quote from Jenkins:
"'We may propose a complex Maya science of shamanically invoking a 'wormhole' in local space-time, an opening to the transdimensional realm that ultimately gets its power from the Black Hole within the Galactic Center, and traveling through it to other worlds,' Jenkins notes, 'Is such a scenario just a fanciful fairy tale, or could it have involved the actual activities of Maya kings and shamans?' And if they practiced such techniques, can they be relearned by us?""
In my readings of Jenkins work, I come away feeling that JMJ was very careful to temper such speculation. There is no problem with suggesting such possibilities, so long as the delivery is measured. That was one of JMJ's trademark signatures. He was very careful to separate himself from the Partay 2012 crowd, and all of the insinuations that the world was going to end on December 21, 2012 or anything of such drama, for that matter. Not sure why the author includes Hancock in this, I certainly wouldn't lump JMJ in a group that includes Arguelles and Calleman.