From: "Jim Bowles" <>

Date: Sat, 23 Oct 1999

Subject: response to Jeff Abelin

On Wed, 03 Feb 1999 Jeff Abelin wrote [& I'm paraphrasing]: I'm intrigued by the idea that Hapgood elegantly explains the sudden onset and retreat of ice ages through a theory of crustal displacements. However, there are problems in the theory. The evidence presented in Graham Hancock's book Fingerprints of the Gods suggests [p 345] that the Sphinx is vastly older than current archeological theories allow. So if the sphinx dates [say] to the end of the last ice age how is it that we find the sphinx to be perfectly aligned in an easterly direction today? Crustal displacement of the magnitude suggested by Hapgood would have offset the alignment of the sphinx considerably.

Jim Bowles says: Just about everyone would agree on the antiquity of the Sphinx, but its true age is hidden by the mis-belief that it is aligned ["perfectly"] eastward. It is not! In short Hapgood's theories of crustal displacement actually help date the Sphinx at about 30,000 BC. This, as shown by the facts that I'll present here, puts Giza on the equator when the Sphinx was cut from the equatorial bed rock!

The spine of the Sphinx is actually aligned 4 degrees north of east, and a perpendicular [accurately] drawn northward from its spine aligns [not with the pole in the Arctic] but with Hapgood's ancient pole in Alaska. Only the reconstructed face of the Sphinx is looking eastward. To start the proof, let me ask you to get a world globe, then stretch a string [taughtly] between Giza and the pan handle of Alaska @ [60 N. lat; 140 W long,] and note that the string misses the modern pole in the Arctic by about four degrees. To see this in the Sphinx, go to, go to the [search engine] and type in Caroline Davies, open the first entry [Egypt Pyramids and The Sphinx] and look at the face of the Sphinx. It is mis-aligned bythis same 4 degrees.

Now if you'll measure between the pole position in Alaska, @ [60 N; 140 W] and Giza @ [about 30 N; 31 E] you'll see that it is exactly 90 degrees, or the equivalent of one meridian length, [pole to the equator] hence when Alaska was on the equator Giza, and the Sphinx were on the equator.

The crust has shifted [at least] twice following the Alaskan Era, moving from [60 N. lat; 140 W long] to the eastern shores of Hudson Bay @ [about 60 deg. N lat; 80 deg. W long] and from there to the Arctic. We can only assign the apparent [modern] alignment of the Sphinx eastward to coincidence. In myarticle [published in "Atlantis Rising," [issue 18] titled, "Hapgood Revisited," see URL below] I suggest that the movement of the crust does not go linearly from pole position to pole position, but rather it bobs back andforth [from the Arctic to Alaska and back] then [from the Arctic to Hudson Bay and back] and now its in the Arctic again!

Let's just hope that Richard W. Noone's date of 5/5/2000 for the next shift is incorrect!! [re., 5/5/2000, Ice: The Ultimate Disaster}

JBowles <>

back to Thoughts_from_Guests