Date: Sun, 19 Dec 1999 01:06:06 -0500
From: John Mangarella <email@example.com>
A FEW THOUGHTS ABOUT RADICAL POLE SHIFT.
I appreciate your Pole Shift web site and hope that it generates new
concepts in the field. As for my own views, I've always thought Pole
Shifting to be a violent and catastrophic event that could effectively
accomplish a supplanting of the poles with the equater in a space of about
four hours. I've read some of the other commentary here, especially Mr.
First, and probably toughest, I think we have to discard the idea of an
"Ice Age" as it is presently viewed. What we may perceive as an "Ice Age"
might very well be the gradual melting and receeding of the ice following a
pole shift. It seems to me that we never really see the "Ice Age" glaciers
move to cover land masses, they are always in recession. Because we see
them in recession, we assume they moved forward in the same way. It may not
be the case.
Second, plate tectonics probably doesn't have much to do with the actual
pole shift. I think there's more there in earthquake study than in pole
shift study. Yet, plate tectonics is a mechanism that is held quite highly
if you feel that pole shifting consists of the slippage of the earth's
crust. It's a way of partially explaining a possible trigger mechanism.
And, maybe it is.
I ask this, suppose the dynamics of pole shifting really means that the
entire planet capsizes? Such an event would explain how the Antarctic land
mass might travel to the Equator in approximately four hours. Four hours
would be time enough to flash freeze a mastodon solid enough to preserve
the meat. Meat that could be cooked and eaten thousands of years later.
Another point, even though we all have to do the math on the possiblities
of pole shifting, (a point I will leave to the math experts, one of which I
am not) I think there is other evidence scattered about the planet and
questions that should be asked. Such as, The Sudan Basin, a spot where the
Ancient Egyptians claimed housed a fresh water sea that spread across the
Sahara--could such a basin have been made by the massive, oppressive weight
of a former ice cap? If that's probable, then maybe the watermarks on the
Sphinx might well be from receeding ice that has melted and refroze on a
daily basis? Is it possible? Who knows? Is it worth a look? Certainly. Can
you see how troubling such a thought might be to leading Egyptologists? If
the watermarks on the Sphinx were caused by ice then that indicates the
Sphinx was locked in an ice cap. If it was locked in such a cap then it may
well have been situated at the top of the planet when the Sudan Basin was
located there. If that follows, then the Sphinx belongs to a civilization
say, two pole shifts ago, a civilization that may have flourished and then
perished when the Sudan Basin was driven to the North Polar position. Is it
possible? It's worth a look.
If the Sahara was formerly an ice cap then it was at the top of the planet
at one time. That sets Antarctica on the Equator. When the Sahara moves to
it's present position, the South Polar Ice Cap moves to the bottom of the
planet. Maybe we have to search the globe for previous basins caused by ice
and THEN apply the math. If we can find these places then we're not dealing
with the mathmatics of pole shift anymore. We're dealing with the
mathmatics of movement of various land masses to the spots they may have
At this point, I don't want to delve into the Bible but there is a section
prior to Noah's story that might be worth a peek. It's a short paragraph
titled The Coming of The Nephilim. It mentions the Sons of Gods mating with
the Daughters of Man. I'm not going to get into that argument but I want to
point out something that may relate to the pole shift. This small paragraph
separates Genesis effectively into two very different maps of the world.
The map of Adam that existed up to the time of Noah. Then the map that
Noah's children lived by after The Flood. The key here is to glance at
human longevity described in those few Bible pages. Prior to the Flood,
(and the Nephilim) man allegedly lives for hundreds of years. After Noah,
man's longevity is cut to 120 years. As though the catastrophe of the the
planet (a pole shift) would not support extended longevity. For whatever
reason, Mankind altered to adapt. Even though this is a very small, silent
clue it still shouts loudly that the Adam's world map was totally different
than Noah's. Maybe we should be looking for these maps.
Again, good look and much success with your web site.
John A. Mangarella