OK, so I'm intrigued by the idea and think that there are some questions (ie the sudden onset and retreat of ice ages) which it elegantly explains. I also see that the physics behind crust displacement makes sense. There are, however, two problems which I see in the theory.
1) I live in Bozeman, Montana, which is just north of yellowstone national park, one of the major hot spots on earth. As I understand it, current geological theory says that the hot spots are areas in the earth's mantle which are hotter than average, over which continental drift causes continents to move during the course of millions of years. Thus the location of the yellowstone hot spot on the north american continent is slowly moving southeastward. Similar examples include the Hawaiian islands and iceland.
Is it possible to reconcile this evidence with earth crust displacement theory? I'm not a Geologist, so I can't answer the question. I hope that someone contributing to this web site will address my concern.
2) My second question involves some of the evidence presented in Graham Hancock's book Fingerprints of the Gods. Let's assume (and, based on the geological evidence, I believe it is true) that the Sphinx is indeed vastly older than current archeological theories suggest. If the sphinx dates to the end of the last ice age or earlier, when, according to Hapgood's theory, comparatively rapid crustal displacement was taking place, how is it that we find the sphinx to be perfectly alligned in an easterly direction today? Crustal displacement of the magnitude suggested by hapgood would have offset the allignment of the sphinx considerably.
A response is that the sphinx must date to just after the crustal displacement of the last ice age. If so, however, it would have been almost immediately afterward, and how would the builders of the sphinx have known for sure that their careful allignment wouldn't be thrown off my minor corrections in the next few millinia? Again, I would love to hear a convincing response to this criticism.